Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Land reform has brought about the most far-reaching redistribution of resources in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980. After a slow but orderly process of redistribution between 1980 and 1999, a fast-track programme was implemented between 2000 and 2002. Variously termed ‘an agrarian revolution’, ’Third Chimurenga’ (liberation struggle) or ’jambanja’ (direct action), this latter phase of land reform involved the acquisition of 11 million hectares from white commercial farmers for redistribution in a process marked by considerable coercion and violence. An estimated 300,000 small farmers were resettled and about 30,000 black commercial farmers had received land by the end of 2002.

Prior to land reform, an estimated 320,000 to 350,000 farm workers were employed on commercial farms owned by about 4,500 white farmers. Their dependants numbered between 1.8 and 2 million (nearly 20 per cent of the country’s population). How did farm workers fare in the massive redistribution of land? What was the broad impact on them? And what are their future prospects?

By the beginning of 2003, only about 100,000 farm workers, a third of the original workforce, were still employed on the farms and plantations. What was the fate of the other 200,000 or so, who together with their families amount to a population of more than 1 million? What sort of livelihoods do they have in the aftermath of land reform? Do they have enough to eat, given the big decline in crop output in the large-scale commercial farming sector? These issues are the subject of this report.

 

2. The purpose of the report

This report aims to assess the situation of farm workers, in particular the profound effects of the fast-track land reform. Most farm workers face a very difficult situation. Up to two-thirds of them are jobless and landless. In many cases this means they have lost their entitlement to housing on the farms, to basic social services (health and education), and to subsidised food. Displaced workers are stranded on farms, while others seek to find shelter in fast-growing ‘informal settlements’ where social conditions are desperate. The study investigates these conditions and the coping strategies of farm workers. It also analyses the following:

·        the impact of the decline in food security on farm workers

·        the effects of the HIV-AIDS epidemic on their livelihoods and family structure

·        the evolving relationships between farm workers, small farmers and commercial farmers

·        the gender dimension in employment and access to land

·        the immediate and long-term needs of farm workers.

The focus of this report derives from the mission and programme priorities of the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), which commissioned it. The FCTZ is a local non-governmental organisation committed to the empowerment of farm workers to achieve a better and secure life, and the creation of an environment conducive to the holistic growth of commercial farming communities. It has pursued this objective through a coordinated programme of community development, advocacy and communication targeted at those who can facilitate change in the sector. The significant reduction (by about 90 per cent) in the numbers of white commercial farms and of farm workers (about 70 per cent), and a concern for the welfare of displaced workers have inspired FCTZ to review its programme focus. Based on material from an extensive national survey completed in November 2002, this report is a contribution to that process of review. The survey was based on a sample of 160 farms and 977 farm worker households in eight provinces, and interviews with stakeholders in the commercial agricultural sector.

 

3. The context and broad impact of reform

The report situates its assessment of the conditions of farm workers in the broader framework of the land question and the historical development of farm worker communities. The land question centred on the inequitable distribution of land between black and white populations. The compelling case for land reform was that of historical redress. In particular, land redistribution was desirable as an outlet for small farmers in the congested communal areas, and for the increasing numbers of landless.

The report provides a historical overview of the development of farm workers. Initially migrant labour drawn from neighbouring countries, their wages, working and living conditions were often poor. By the 1970s, however, the majority of farm workers were indigenous black people, who at the start of the fast-track reform constituted about 75 per cent of the farm workforce. Although conditions on some farms improved in the 1990s, they did not have security of tenure or adequate social safety nets on retirement. A marginalised and vulnerable group, their political and social rights were restricted for many years.

In assessing the fast-track programme, the report shows how political and electoral calculations shaped the pace and direction of reform and explores the dynamics behind the various phases of the programme. The last phase of reform witnessed controversy over the allocation and ownership of model farms, leading to calls for a comprehensive audit of the programme.

The immediate consequences of the programme for crop production in the large-scale commercial sector include significant declines in output of maize (from 800,000 tonnes in 2000 to about 80,000 tonnes in 2003), wheat (from 225,000 tonnes in 2000 to less than 100,000 tonnes in 2003), soya beans (from 145,000 tonnes in 2000 to 30,000 in 2003) and tobacco (from 230 million kg in 2000 to about 70 million kg in 2003) (CFU, 2003). The declines will have profoundly negative consequences for the sector, gross domestic product (GDP) and foreign exchange earnings.

 

4. Effects on workers’ livelihoods

Drawing on field material gathered in October and November 2002 in eight provinces, the report explores the effects of land reform on employment and workers’ livelihoods. About 90 per cent of the 160 farms surveyed had experienced a halt or drastic decline in production, and hence in employment, following the receipt of eviction orders from the government. Exceptions to the evictions and decline were large estates and plantations engaged in tea, coffee, sugar and livestock production, and those operating in export processing zones.

The overall picture is one of massive job losses — affecting about 70 per cent of the original farm workforce. More precise estimates are not possible. The loss of permanent worker status on farms is widespread. There is a pronounced trend towards contract or piece-work arrangements. Both the newly resettled small farmers and ‘new’ large commercial farmers lack the financial resources and production capacity to absorb the former permanent workers.

However, despite the large job losses, a considerable proportion of farm workers remain living on the farms. There is evidence to suggest that up to 50 per cent of farm workers stayed on even if they no longer held jobs. In general, female workers suffered greater loss of employment. The survey data suggests that more than 50 per cent of permanent female workers and nearly 60 per cent of seasonal female workers lost their jobs. This compares with 30 and 33 per cent respectively for permanent and seasonal male workers. The data also indicate a decline in permanent and seasonal female workers (by 63 per cent and 42 per cent respectively) living on farms. That substantial proportion of female and male workers no longer living on farms must be experiencing considerable hardship, wherever they are now.

In the survey sample, only about a quarter of the farm workers who lost jobs had received severance packages by the end of 2002. The packages would have cushioned them against loss of income, at least for a few months. Those who did not receive packages expect to seek piece-work and other income-earning opportunities. In sum, the loss of a regular job-based income has undermined the livelihoods of most farm worker households.

An unfortunate development is farm workers’ diminishing access to crucial resources and services. Change in farm ownership has restricted access to housing, schools, clinics and safe water. Where a farm owner has been evicted, the running and maintenance of the school and payment of the teaching staff often cease, leading to the school’s closure. Most early child education centres (ECECs) have also been closed down, as have farm clinics.

 

6. Food security, vulnerable groups, HIV-AIDS and coping strategies

Land reform has had a direct impact on food security at national level as well as on farm workers’ requirements. The decline in maize and wheat production since 2000 was compounded in 2001-02 and 2002-03 by a major drought affecting the entire southern Africa region. In Zimbabwe, however, the disruptions associated with ‘land invasions’ further undermined crop production. For jobless farm workers, access to food has been difficult and irregular. Food aid has been made available to some of those without a livelihood, and to children under five and those of school age. The role of the FCTZ in the three Mashonaland provinces and in Manicaland has been pivotal in this. There have been deaths from starvation in several provinces. Moreover, despite efforts to provide food aid, the incidence of malnutrition is increasing among farm workers’ children on farms and in informal settlements.

Like other social groups, farm workers have been vulnerable to the HIV-AIDS epidemic. The prevalence rate among them in the 20-49 year age group is estimated at higher than 25 per cent. The consequences include a rise in the number of orphans and child-headed households. Extended family and nuclear family structures are under severe stress as household assets are drawn upon to treat people with AIDS-related sicknesses. Resources and home-based care institutions for the sick are very limited. Constant food shortages mean poor nutrition for AIDS patients, among others.

Other vulnerable groups in the farm worker community include migrant workers and their descendants, women, the elderly, youth and children. Most migrant workers or their descendants have no communal homes, land or jobs to fall back on. There is no social safety net for the elderly and retired workers, or for women concentrated in insecure, seasonal jobs.

In response to the loss of permanent jobs and access to shelter and social services, farm workers have pursued a number of coping strategies. These include the itinerant search for piece-work jobs at different farms at different times, informal trade, gold panning, fishing and hunting. Income from these activities is irregular and limited, but the workers appear to have no other options. The working conditions and wages on the farms of small and new commercial farmers are unattractive. A few farm worker households receive remittances from relatives working elsewhere. Some farm workers have created or joined ‘informal settlements’ on which they have access to a small piece of land, and to basic, often-rudimentary social services.

 

7. Towards the future

The report concludes with an examination of the emerging relationship between the new farmers, both small and large, and farm workers. While the former have been, by and large, beneficiaries of land reform, the latter have not, despite appeals for land through their union, the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers’ Union (GAPWUZ). A somewhat uneasy relationship exists between the beneficiaries and the farm workers. There have been conflicts over continued access to farm housing for farm workers, and over resources such as land, water and food. However, there are also instances of peaceful co-existence on some farms.

Although there has been a substantial decline in union membership, owing to job losses, about 75 per cent of the union members interviewed still belonged to GAPWUZ. However, the newly-created and state-sponsored Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (ZFTU) also appears to have members, at least in a few provinces such as Masvingo. The challenges that GAPWUZ faces are new and manifold. It will need to re-assess its mission, focus and strategies, now that the farm worker community is substantially reduced in size.

In assessing the immediate and medium-term needs of farm workers, the report draws on priorities suggested by those interviewed for the survey. Not surprisingly, they identified the more immediate needs of farm workers as food and land. When the field research was conducted, in October and November 2002, food scarcity was a major problem and a livelihood crisis was mounting. This explains the priority attached to the resources of food and land. Other priority needs were income generating projects (requested in particular by women respondents), crop inputs, social infrastructure and services.

The report also presents recommendations for interventions by non-governmental organistions (NGOs), governments and donors to avert an evolving crisis.

 

Recommendations

This report identifies many issues, challenges and needs pertaining to farm workers in the post-land reform era. The relevant stakeholders need to address these systematically. In this context, the stakeholders include the Zimbabwe government, the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU), GAPWUZ, Parliament, local and international NGOs, and donor countries and agencies. The issues and needs have been distilled into recommendations which should lay the basis for further discussion and refinement, and for planning and action. They are not exhaustive. However, the urgency of the recommendations cannot be over-emphasised in view of the evolving humanitarian emergency that farm workers confront.

 

I.                    Food security and provision of inputs

The immediate needs of farm workers on and off the farms are for food supplies. This report gives evidence of increased malnutrition among farm workers’ children and hunger among displaced farm workers, including deaths from starvation. The combination of disrupted production, drought and erratic food supplies through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) has undermined the food security of farm workers. The report mentions important efforts by the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe to meet the food needs of jobless farm workers and their children through feeding programmes. But these programmes cannot cater for all who are short of food. The programmes should be enlarged and extended into other provinces, namely the two Matabeleland provinces, Midlands and Masvingo. Political considerations and partisanship should be completely excluded from matters of food distribution. Only humanitarian considerations should apply.

However, food handouts are not a sustainable way to ensure long-term food security. Farm workers should be provided with the means to produce food for themselves and for local markets. While they may already have production skills, they lack access to land and inputs. There is therefore a need for an extensive programme to provide inputs, particularly seed, fertiliser, draught-power and an extension service to those workers with land on which to grow food. For sustainable food security, displaced farm workers should be granted land rights. The modest FCTZ input assistance programme should be studied for wider lessons for a more extensive programme for farm workers.

Those who should act on this recommendation are: government, local and international NGOs, private sector and donor agencies.

 

II.                  Infrastructure and social services

The report shows that in the aftermath of reform, infrastructure and social services on most farms that were acquired for resettlement have collapsed. Also, there is little or no infrastructure or services in most newly settled areas: no roads, electricity, protected water supplies, schools or clinics. While previous resettlement schemes included systematic planning for and investment in such infrastructure and services, this was absent in the current schemes. There is a danger of the spread of disease and prolonged disruption of children’s schooling, unless infrastructure and services are put in place. But this will require holistic planning and very substantial resources. These facilities would serve the needs not only of farm workers, but also of newly settled small farmers. Several parliamentary portfolio committees have testified to the difficulties the new settlers are experiencing owing to the collapse or absence of infrastructure and services. The infrastructure and services that previously existed on the farms must be repaired or revived. This is a daunting task but an essential one.

Those who should act on this recommendation include government, donor countries and agencies, local and international NGOs, new commercial farmers, GAPWUZ and Parliament.

 

III.                The coping strategies and livelihoods of farm workers

Of necessity, farm workers who are jobless, landless and without homes in communal areas have tried various coping strategies. Piece-work on the farms where they live and on adjacent farms is often temporary, insecure and badly paid. They also earn some income from informal trading in agricultural produce and second-hand clothes, and in craft materials in local markets. These activities should be supported by setting up market stalls and small depots for buying and resale in nearby towns and communal areas.

Assistance to set up a distribution network and service would boost the growth of small crafts industries using local raw materials. Provision of equipment, credit and a regulatory framework would enable gold panners to ensure basic occupational health and safety, and encourage preservation of the environment.

Women expressed particular interest in income-generating projects, including poultry-raising, sewing clothes and uniforms, baking and jam-making. Some have skills in horticulture, vegetable and fruit processing, and packing. Programmes to support such projects would provide sources of income to female former farm workers.

As the report shows, some groups among farm workers are much more vulnerable following land reform. They include migrant workers, elderly and retired workers, women, youth and children. Special schemes should be devised to meet their specific needs, to mitigate a very stressful environment. Most of them have no homes or land of their own; the elderly and retired workers have little or no pension. They need some kind of safety net. Young people and children have difficulty in obtaining education and skills training. Programmes to provide such opportunities should be resuscitated and expanded.

Actors who should enhance support for coping strategies are local and international NGOs, government, local authorities, donors, the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) and the National Employment Council (NEC) for Agriculture.

 

IV.                Addressing HIV-AIDS in farm worker communities

Farm workers have been caught in the web of the HIV-AIDS epidemic, and widespread poverty and food insecurity have exacerbated its effects. A systematic response is needed to the increase in numbers of people with AIDS-related illnesses and the growing number of AIDS orphans. Programmes such as the Farm Orphans Support Trust (FOST) have developed some experience in promoting community-based care of orphans over the years. This experience should be closely studied for wider lessons, and expanded to cater for the greater number of orphans on farms and in informal settlements. The food, health and education needs of orphans should be treated as a high priority.

The National AIDS Council (NAC) receives considerable sums of taxpayers’ money every month but little of it appears to reach farm worker communities. There should be a special effort to alert the NAC to the situation of these communities, and to ensure that they receive a share of the revenues through credible AIDS support organisations such as FOST and community-based organisations. Efforts should be made to establish community-based home-care organisations to look after AIDS patients. At the same time, AIDS awareness campaigns and messages to promote condom use and other forms of safe sex should be stepped up.

Main players who should be active in this sector are: the NAC, government, local and international NGOs, the CFU, GAPWUZ, the NEC for Agriculture and the media.

 

V.                 Informal settlements

The report observes that informal settlements or ‘squatter camps’ have mushroomed to provide shelter and sometimes land to farm workers who have lost jobs and entitlement to shelter on the farms. Such settlements exist in different provinces: in Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland East, Manicaland and Matabeleland North. Some of them are on the fringes of commercial farms; others are near small farming towns and several are close to the capital. Conditions in these settlements leave a great deal to be desired. Housing, schooling, health facilities, sanitation and water supplies are rudimentary. Food security is poor. The number of poor households is considerable.

Yet these settlements are now a sanctuary to hundreds, in some cases thousands, of farm worker households. One advantage is that they and their occupants are easily accessible. With their concentrated population, provision of services and infrastructure should be cost-effective. But it will require basic planning by local authorities and consultation with the inhabitants. More immediately, there is a need to ensure food supplies to the settlements, and provide schooling and health facilities. Where there is a reasonable amount of land near the settlement, government should consider allocating it to former farm workers who want to turn it to productive use. In the longer term, informal settlements can be turned into growth points and service centres offering opportunities for light and informal industry, and markets for local goods and services. They will need to be upgraded and provided with basic services, such as shops, banks and post offices. Issues of tenure security (land and housing rights) will need to be negotiated with both central government and local authorities.

Major players in the provision of resources, services and planning would be: government, local authorities, local and international NGOs, churches and donors, and settlement community-based associations.

 

VI.               Skills and organisational base of farm workers

Over many years, farm workers acquired a range of skills in crop production, use of agricultural machinery, repair and maintenance of equipment and use of agri-chemicals. Some workers were drivers, technicians, clerks and forepersons. These skills will be wasted if they are not used. The model farms appear to be employing few of them. There is therefore a compelling reason to allocate land to former farm workers on which they can deploy these skills. It would be worthwhile to invest effort in encouraging the creation of producer groups, or production and marketing cooperatives, among former farm workers. Workers’ groups could negotiate fair arrangements with companies that lend inputs. The companies could recoup the costs when they purchase the commodities produced.

In the aftermath of land reform, the union base among farm workers has been considerably weakened. The main union, GAPWUZ, now operates on a smaller membership and resource base. There is a case for material and solidarity support for the union. More specifically, efforts should be directed at capacity building in the union and strengthening its advocacy. Its focus will be wider now, extending to workers on the new commercial farms, and to those in informal settlements.

Main players who should help to preserve and strengthen the skills and organisational base of unions are: GAPWUZ, the international labour movement, FCTZ, local and international NGOs, agribusiness companies and commodity associations.

 

VII.             Compensation and reintegration of white farmers

Although this report is not explicitly about the conditions of white farmers after reform, compensation for them remains a major issue. It is addressed in the Abuja Agreement of 2001, and in discussions between the government and the farmers’ body, the CFU. By February 2003, compensation had been paid for only 134 farms and the government’s current budget for compensation is about Z$4.5 billion (about £3.46 million at the official exchange rate — in May 2003 the official exchange rate was Z$1,300 to £1, while the rate on the parallel market was Z$2,000 to £1). This could scarcely compensate for 40 farm properties.

Hence the need to create conditions of normality so that dialogue with bilateral and multilateral donors can resume in earnest after nearly four years. This will centre principally on discussions with the British government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The British government had pledged £50 million for land reform in 2001, but on condition of a return to the rule of law. The UNDP has promised to mobilise international support for an independent Trust Fund, of which one component would provide direct compensation to farmers for land acquired. A second component would support displaced farm workers. A third component would provide resources for the resettlement process, including basic infrastructure on acquired land, equipment and tools, extension services, and training and support for capacity building and technical assistance to the government.

Resolving the compensation issue would pave the way for re-integration of the white farmers who remain in the country and would be willing to resume farming. The contacts between the CFU and government would have to reach a more serious level for this to become a reality. In particular, a major diplomatic and political shift to ‘give and take’ is needed on the part of government and the other parties.

Major actors in this process will be: the Zimbabwe government, the British government, UNDP, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), CFU, GAPWUZ, donor countries and agencies.

 

VIII.           Transparent, equitable and gender-sensitive agrarian reform

The main focus of this report is the repercussions of land reform for farm workers. However, field findings show the imperative for a transparent, equitable and gender-sensitive process. Indeed, in early 2003 there were growing calls for a comprehensive land audit to ascertain irregularities and corruption in the allocation of model farms. There is certainly a need for transparency in agrarian reform. In comparison with organised interest groups such as war veterans, women have not been allocated a fair share of land. They appear to have received less than 20 per cent of the land. It seems that fewer than 5 per cent of farm workers received land under the programme.

It would be advisable to revisit the criteria of land allocation and ensure that the landless, women and farm workers receive preference. Land allocated for prospective black commercial farmers remains unoccupied: of the projected 51,000, about 30,000 have taken up land. The remaining land should be allocated equitably to the priority groups. So should land that was allegedly taken up as second or third farms by some members of the elite. There is a compelling case for an independent land commission to ensure transparent and equitable land distribution. The agrarian reform needs both national and international credibility: its funding will depend partly on this. It would be useful to organise an international land conference that would consider these issues, and especially support for farm workers, the resettled small farmers, and long-term food security. An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the fast-track programme would help in planning the next phase of reform.

Major players in this process should include: government, UNDP, the European Union, the Commonwealth, bilateral and multilateral donors, GAPWUZ, the National Economic Consultative Forum (NECF), local and international NGOs, the Independent Land Commission.

 

IX.               Forum for conflict management and resolution

The report refers to uneasy relations between farm workers and the new settlers and farmers. There have been conflicts over resources: access to housing, land and food. Farm workers have been evicted from farms and compounds. Tension has sometimes broken out between commercial farmers and the newly settled small farmers. A structure is needed to facilitate the resolution of misunderstandings and disputes between these parties. This structure should include local authorities and representatives from the parties themselves. It should adjudicate conflicts and serve as a non-partisan forum for regular consultation on matters of mutual interest. Such matters would include access to water and other natural resources, social services and livelihoods opportunities. As far as possible, local communities should work out the format and scope of this forum. Local authorities should facilitate such initiatives.

Main actors in such a forum would be: local communities, settlers and new farmers, local authorities, NGOs, the NEC for Agriculture, GAPWUZ and the CFU.

 

X.                 Citizenship rights and civic life

Until recently, the citizenship rights of so-called migrant farm workers were ignored. There was even a xenophobic attitude towards them in some circles. However, it appears legislation is to be introduced to grant citizenship to people, including migrant farm workers, from countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Unfortunately, this belated citizenship will not give them a right to land. This report argues that workers should have land rights to cushion them from the loss of jobs and livelihoods. There should be a special effort to ensure that farm workers do indeed secure full citizenship rights. Their access to birth certificates, national identity documents and passports should be facilitated. In the past, it has been difficult for them to obtain these vital documents.

In addition, special efforts should be made to integrate farm workers into civic life. They should receive basic education about their rights, as well as voter education. They should be encouraged to participate in local community activities such as those of farm development committees (FADCOs), local council programmes and union activities. Voluntary associations and civic groups have a special role to play in this.

Major players in this process should be: NGOs, local community organisations, local authorities, GAPWUZ, women’s and youth groups, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network.

 

XI.               The search for sustainable models for agrarian reform in southern Africa

Following the controversial land reform in Zimbabwe, debate is intensifying over what form and pace reform should take in countries such as Namibia and South Africa. The ’willing seller, willing buyer’ approach appears to be inadequate. It will not be effective or feasible on a significant scale in these countries. At the same time, huge problems attend reform based on orchestrated land invasions. Governments and civil society need to work out feasible and sustainable approaches to land reform. Consultation and policy based on consensus between the stakeholders are indispensable in crafting such approaches.

From the beginning, farm workers should be integrated into reform strategies. Systematic planning of resettlement schemes will need to integrate infrastructure support, services, input supplies and extension from the start. A strong and visible poverty reduction strategy should be built into the reform process. This search for reform models should build on successful smaller schemes where they have been implemented in the region.

Major actors in this process should be: governments, the SADC, the UNDP, farmers’ associations, agricultural workers’unions, research institutions, NGOs and donors.

 

CHAPTER 1

The Land Question, Reform and Farm Workers

1. 1   Introduction

For many years, commercial farm workers were the largest segment of the workforce in Zimbabwe’s formal sector. In the 1980s and 1990s, their numbers fluctuated between 300,000 and 350,000, or between 20 and 25 per cent of the national workforce. The farm workforce supported an even larger population of about 2 million. The employment opportunities in commercial agriculture testified to the pivotal role that the sector played, and continues to play, in the national economy. Historically, the sector was not only a major employer, but also a leading contributor to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as well as to foreign exchange earnings.

Until 2000, the average annual contribution of agriculture to GDP was between 16 and 18 per cent. Its contribution to foreign exchange earnings was boosted in particular by tobacco and horticulture exports. About 40 per cent of foreign exchange earnings came from the sector. Because of its large contribution to employment, GDP and foreign exchange, agriculture was termed the ’engine’ or ’backbone’ of the economy. Moreover, the manufacturing sector derived about 60 per cent of its inputs from agriculture. The deepening linkages between agriculture and manufacturing were a major factor behind the growth, sophistication and diversification of the Zimbabwean economy from the 1950s to the 1990s.

However, the prosperity of commercial agriculture was based on a shaky foundation. It rested on skewed land distribution. Through historical dispossession, the majority African population was assigned inferior, overcrowded land while the white settler minority amassed most of the prime arable land. At independence, this minority owned 15.5 million hectares.

There was an attempt at land reform soon after independence but the new constitution arising from the Lancaster House negotiations did not allow a comprehensive reform programme. The impetus for such a comprehensive programme was generated in 2000. The ‘fast-track’ land reform was the result.

The most far-reaching effect of the fast-track programme or jambanja (direct action), as politicians called it, was the acquisition of about 90 per cent of commercial farms. The government claimed to have completed this by August 2002, although new acquisitions were still continuing in March 2003. In a land reform marked by considerable coercion, violence and disorder, the government acquired for distribution about 11 million hectares owned by white commercial farmers. The immediate consequence was an exodus of white farmers from their properties, and the loss of jobs and livelihoods for thousands of farm workers. Many lost regular incomes and access to basic social services such as health and education. They became particularly vulnerable to a widespread food shortage that affected between 6 and 7 million Zimbabweans in 2002.

 

1.2        The purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to assess the situation of commercial farm workers, in particular, how it has been shaped by the fast-track land reform programme since 2000. Some estimates suggest that 180,000 to 200,000 farm workers, if not more, lost their jobs. In most instances, this resulted in loss of their entitlement to housing on the farms, and often to subsidised food and basic social services. Others were forced to move off the farms to make way for new settlers under the A1 and A2 models. (Under the A1 model, small farmers have been settled on pieces of land of about 5 hectares with additional grazing land. Under the A2 model, aspiring black commercial farmers have been allocated land of several hundred, sometimes several thousand, hectares). Those displaced by the reform are often stranded on the outskirts of the farms, or else they have trekked to fast-growing ’informal settlements’ where social conditions are desperate. The report investigates the conditions in which farm workers subsist, and their coping strategies. In particular, it analyses the impact of the decline in food security and the effects of the HIV-AIDS epidemic on their livelihoods and family structures.

The report begins by setting out the social and historical context surrounding the debate and process of land reform. This background is needed to explain the dynamics and trajectory of the fast-track programme. It presents the contending perspectives on how the reform should have been undertaken, and then examines the wider economic and social consequences of what actually occurred. The report draws on field findings to describe and assess the changes on commercial farms since 2000, and focuses on the impact of those changes on farm workers. Aspects of government policy or measures and the positions and experiences of commercial farmers are touched on where they had effects for farm workers.

There is a compelling reason to maintain this focus on farm workers. Historically, they have been sidelined in discussion of policies or programmes that determine their interests. So it was under the fast-track programme. This focus also derives from the mission and programme focus of the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), the sponsor of this report. The FCTZ is a local non-governmental organisation (NGO) committed to empowering farm workers to achieve a better life, and creating an environment conducive to the holistic growth of commercial farming communities. Founded in 1999, the FCTZ has pursued its objective through a coordinated programme of community development and advocacy, lobbying and communication, targeted at those who can facilitate change within the commercial farming community. In a number of ways, the fast-track programme has had a direct impact on the scope of FCTZ’s work and on its target group, the farm workers themselves. The significant reduction in the number of white commercial farms and the workers who provided labour on them, and a need to attend to the welfare of displaced workers, have inspired FCTZ to review its programme focus. This report is a contribution to that process. It is based on the findings of an extensive national survey undertaken in October-November 2002.

The report intends to contribute to a broader regional debate on land reform. Namibia and South Africa are currently experiencing increasingly strident calls for speedy and comprehensive redistribution of land. As in Zimbabwe, historical injustice underlay the colonial dispossession of the majority African peoples. Are there any implicit lessons that can be drawn from Zimbabwe for future land reforms in those countries? What aspects of Zimbabwe’s fast-track programme should be adopted or avoided? How can the interests and welfare of farm workers be kept at the centre, and not the margins, of a land reform programme? These issues are addressed in the concluding section of the report.

 

1.3    The structure of the report

This report has four chapters, in addition to this introductory chapter, which outlines the scope of the report and gives some historical background. The second chapter provides an overview of the scope and process of land reform on the national level. This sets out the broad context in which the reform was implemented, and the impact on farm workers, commercial farmers and the wider economy. It assesses the role of political, electoral and legal factors in shaping the direction of reform. The chapter identifies several distinct phases of reform: a phase of ‘spontaneous occupations’ preceded the ‘land invasions’, which were in turn followed by the ‘fast-track’ programme itself. The overview concludes by assessing the last phase of reform in 2002, including the controversy surrounding ownership of A2 model farms that led to calls for a comprehensive audit of the programme.

Chapter 3 considers the impact of the land reform on the employment conditions and livelihoods of farm workers. Drawing extensively on field data from the provinces, it assesses how the decline in numbers of operating commercial farms, especially in 2001-2002, led to a large drop in employment. (An estimated 50 per cent of farm workers had lost jobs by the beginning of 2002, and 65 per cent by February 2003.) This had a direct effect on their livelihoods because of the loss of regular incomes. The chapter also considers the effects of the acquisition of farms on social infrastructure and services such as schools and health centres that had been set up on the farms. Some closed down, causing great hardship to farm worker communities. The chapter goes on to examine the extent to which farm workers have had access to severance packages under Statutory Instrument 6.

Food security and the coping strategies of farm workers are addressed in Chapter 4. Food shortage appeared to be intensifying in most rural and farming areas in all the provinces covered. Farm workers still in employment, as well as those who had lost their jobs, had difficulty in obtaining regular supplies of food. But the new settlers had the same problem. The chapter discusses the situation of the more vulnerable groups: migrant workers, women, elderly and orphans. It describes how HIV-AIDS has become a major epidemic in farm worker communities, which lack resources and local care institutions to look after those who are ill. With the growing stress on the extended family network, these communities have less and less capacity to look after AIDS orphans. The chapter also provides an account of coping strategies that farm workers have adopted to help them survive in an economically stressful environment.

Chapter 5 examines the emerging pattern of social relations: primarily those between the new settlers, new farmers and farm workers. It shows how farm workers have been marginalised in the land reform process. Examples are provided of conflict, but also of co-existence, between farm workers and the settlers and new farmers. The farm workers have not been completely passive and powerless in this process. The chapter outlines the collective response of workers through the main union in the sector, GAPWUZ. Finally, the chapter spells out the immediate needs of farm workers and identifies ways to address them.

 

1.4    The land question in historical perspective

To understand fully the complex character and contested process of the fast-track reform, the land question should be viewed from a historical perspective (Palmer, 1977; 1990). Land was a major economic resource expropriated from the indigenous peoples at the start of colonialism in the 1890s, and expropriation continued intermittently until the 1950s and even into the 1960s. Land dispossession symbolised colonial subjugation. Perhaps no other issue was   more emblematic of national liberation. Nationalist politicians did not tire of reminding their supporters that the primary purpose of the independence struggle was the restoration of the land expropriated by colonial settlers. In the 1950s and 1960s, a nationalist position on land was taking shape. In 1963, the newly founded Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) party demanded the abrogation of the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and the Land Husbandry Act of 1951 (ZANU, 1963, quoted in Nyandoro and Nyangoni, 1979). It further stated that ‘absentee ownership of land shall be forbidden’ and that ‘unused land shall be declared communal’. ZANU eventually created a National Land Board to administer an equitable distribution of land.

Nowhere else on the African continent (with the exception of Kenya, Namibia and South Africa) had there been such a massive expropriation of land. Independence in 1980 was therefore expected to lead to the recovery of this important material and symbolic resource. The structure of land-ownership and use was clearly inequitable at independence (Sachikonye, 2002). About 6,000 white commercial farmers owned 15.5 million hectares, while 8,500 small-scale farmers possessed 1.4 million hectares. The remaining indigenous communal farmers — about 700,000 households — subsisted on 16.4 million hectares. This was less than half of the country’s agricultural land. Of particular significance was that 75 per cent of the land owned by communal farmers was in agro-ecological regions 4 and 5, which are drier and less fertile. There was therefore a keenly felt sense of historical injustice and deprivation, focused on land. Not surprisingly, it was one of the most contentious issues negotiated at the Lancaster House talks on Zimbabwe’s independence in 1979. Nationalist negotiators subsequently said that at that conference, the UK and US promised to contribute significantly to land purchase to redress imbalances in land ownership. However, the UK and US disputed this.

Whether it was made or not, that promise was not enshrined in the independence constitution. The constitution contained onerous clauses protecting private property, including land. As one leading nationalist recalled:

we said that the new constitution should permit government to expropriate land if it was not being properly used. The British said ‘fine’, so long as we paid the full market price. But we knew that vast acreage were lying idle and therefore without a market price in areas formerly reserved for white ownership. To buy areas adequate for resettling the many land-hungry African farmers, who had been confined to the former tribal trust land, would be beyond the financial ability of the new state (Nkomo, 1984: 195-6).

After independence, land reform focused on settling people on land acquired from white commercial farmers on a ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ basis . But this was relatively expensive. The independence constitution had tied the government’s hands by entrenching property rights, so that only under-used land could be compulsorily purchased (Cliffe, 1988). Even so, purchase involved immediate payment of full value in foreign exchange. The cost constraint significantly restricted government’s room for manoeuvre on the land question in the 1980s.

This was the structural context in which the post-independence government embarked on a land reform programme whose centrepiece was resettlement of the landless and poor on newly acquired land. The programme’s overall objective was to resettle 162,000 households on 9 million hectares. That would have represented a transfer of about 23 per cent of families from the congested communal lands on to new land. It was not to be. Owing to the resource constraints and limited political will, only about 48,000 households had been resettled by 1989.

In general, what distinguishes this phase of gradual land redistribution from the later ‘fast track’ phase was its peaceful and orderly character. The process of selecting settlers for resettlement was, by and large, transparent. Resettlement itself was accompanied by provision of essential inputs such as seed and fertiliser, and infrastructure such as roads, clinics and schools. As one aid mission concluded, the resettlement programme in the 1980s made ‘impressive strides towards its principal objectives’ (ODA, 1996). The majority of settled families had benefited considerably from the increased opportunities for income generation, and the availability of services such as health and education.

Table 1.1 Land tenure in Zimbabwe 1980-2002

Land category	1980 ha(m)	1997 ha(m)	2002 ha(m)
LSCFa (white-owned)	15.5	12.1	1b
LSCF (A2 model)	--	--	2.0
cCA	16.4	16.4	16.4
dSSCFA	1.4	1.4	1.4
Resettlement