In the period after 2017, the land market across Zimbabwe’s land reform areas has exploded. Continuing on from the periods discussed in the last blog, this post explores what has happened across our study sites and the consequences for the economies of land reform areas in the last seven years.
A number of factors have contributed to the massive expansion of land markets in this period. The post-coup regime under President Mnangagwa (starting in late 2017) has promoted a narrative of the country being ‘open for business’. This has included the relaxing of restrictions on joint ventures and even a formal, if complex, route for regularising these. Although land rentals and purchases within land reform areas are notionally illegal as this is state land, there seems to be a general acceptance that this is happening and may offer opportunities for bringing underutilised land into production, especially in A2 areas.
The relatively stable economic environment of the GNU (Government of National Unity) period, however, gave way to a much more volatile economic context, with attempts at re-establishing local currencies (RTGS, later ZiG) creating much uncertainty. Inflation returned with the printing of money and a further collapse of the economy has been brought on by intensified corruption and the on-going effects of sanctions and associated trade and investment restrictions and disincentives.
These economic conditions have made investment in land and agriculture a (relatively) reliable option even if challenging, and many have sought to diversify businesses to include land as part of their portfolio. Meanwhile, others whose precarious jobs in town or abroad have become increasingly unviable have sought land-based livelihood options, continuing the flow of people from urban to rural areas. Rural to rural movements have occurred too, as people seek better land, moving from areas increasingly affected by drought and far from markets.
All this is happening across our study sites; in A2, A1 and communal areas alike. The following sections identify broadly three types of new entrant, where land purchases or formal lease arrangements are occurring.
New migrants to communal areas
Echoing the large movements of communal area people in the 1980s and 90s from areas in the dry south of the country to areas such as Gokwe, a new flow of people is evident with people in search of land, better soils and good rainfall. For example, in Chiweshe communal area in Mashonaland Central province, there are many new homes being established in what were previously grazing areas. As the local residents have contracted their farm areas, focusing more on homestead gardening rather than extensive outfield farming, other areas of land have become available in the farming areas too.
In Chiweshe many new residents come from Mount Darwin and Muzarabani areas, where continuous drought has encouraged them to move to seek better options. They have been joined by former farmworkers who following land reform lost their jobs, with many remaining resident in the compounds. While some have managed to secure livelihoods through a combination of piece work and small-scale farming, others have sought more secure options in the communal areas. Farm workers have also come from the A2 farms and still-existing large-scale commercial farms complaining of poor conditions and low pay.
Like the earlier waves of rural-rural migration in Zimbabwe, these moves have been linked to booms in certain crops. In the 1980s, it was cotton, but today tobacco is a major attraction, with farm workers also coming with considerable skills in its cultivation. The new settlers in Chiweshe have been allocated often very small plots of land, just sufficient for a homestead and a small garden. These illegal allocations have been made by sabhukus often with surreptitious payments for plots. Going rates range from US$250 to $800, depending on the size of land and is quality. The land areas are often insufficient, and this has spurred a land rental market as newcomers rent parcels of land, often from multiple households, to be able to farm.
In other communal areas across our study areas, we see young people acquiring land near their parents’ original homes. These may be children of land reform settlers who are unable to get land in the land reform areas, or do not want to have to be reliant on a subdivided plot, but want their own homestead and farm land. For example, in Serima communal area in Gutu, there are plots being offered for around US$450 to US$800 (see Case 1).
Case 1: I was born in 1999 in Renco and grew up there. For the last 5 years, I have been working as a farmworker for Mr MT in Stanmore B, doing horticulture. I then left in August, and I am now working for Mrs M who is doing horticulture here in Wondedzo Wares. I recently got married, and I have one child. My wife is from Wondedzo Wares. Last year, I bought a ‘stand’ in Serima communal area from a war veteran for US$450. Initially, I wanted to use the money to get a driver’s licence, but I thought investing in a piece of land was a much better option for now. I asked people on WhatsApp groups if they knew anyone who was selling land. The sabhuku in the area then advised that I should get a ‘transferring’ letter.Fortunately, the sabhuku of Stanmore B offered to write the letter for me in order to expedite the transaction, given that he had known me for a very long time when I was working and living there.
Expanding commercial agriculture in A1 resettlement areas
In a number of our sites commercial irrigated horticulture has really taken off. From the early days of growing vast numbers of tomatoes that often could not be sold, it has become more sophisticated, with systems in place to time production when there are not gluts in supply, and to diversify crops, to high value options, including butternut squashes, chillies, cucumbers and sugar beans. This has attracted interest from many, especially as the cost of irrigation continues to decline. Many start with a small pump and a few pipes on a plot near a river or a dam, but quickly expand. This results in a growing demand for irrigable land, alongside demand for new and larger pumps, borehole drilling services, greenhouse equipment, vehicles for transporting to markets and so on.
In Wondedzo area near Masvingo the original group of horticultural entrepreneurs, mostly linked to the Apostolic church, has expanded significantly, as others have arrived. Land purchases and rental arrangements have expanded, both in Wondedzo and nearby farms. There has been an expansion of irrigated land along the Mtirikwe river, with the area now covered in greenhouses with irrigated fields full of a huge variety of vegetables. Marketing is sophisticated, with contracts with supermarkets and others ensuring a steady flow of income. With labour supplied by many wives and large families the financial costs are low, and profits high, resulting in further investment and expansion. While local sabhukus oversee the land market, sometimes with cuts being taken, government officials are kept at arm’s length.
In these cases, access to land can be negotiated through informal land markets within A1 areas. There are purchases and rentals mediated by local leaders, but there is usually a close connection between existing farmers and the new entrants. They may be linked through church groups (as in the VaPostori) or are close relatives interested in farming, having missed out on earlier allocations. They come with money, skill and an investment drive, and are commercialising agriculture in the new resettlement areas boosting production.
The same is occurring in livestock-producing areas such as our site in Matobo as Case 2 illustrates. Here purchase of land (and a homestead) has allowed the expansion of commercial production.
Case 2: I was born in 1963 in Wenlock communal areas in Gwanda and grew up there. I run two general dealer shops in Wenlock communal areas in Gwanda. Since the early 2000s, my brother and I have been leasing pastures here. We were keeping the animals at my brother’s son’s homestead in the ‘old line’. In 2020, I then acquired this plot through purchase. The plot formerly belonged to FM, who passed away in 2019. His wife later sold the plot to me for US$18 000, including an elaborate homestead, farm infrastructure, 5 donkeys and a scotch cart. I have managed to change ownership into my name at the Ministry of Lands in Gwanda. I have decided to put the offer letter in my wife’s name.
A similar case is offered from Gutu, where a new investor acquired an A1 plot, drilled boreholes and established an irrigation plot.
Case 3: I was born in Chivhu in 1968 and grew up there. I worked as a secondary school teacher in Botswana, where I have been working since 2008. When land reform started in the year 2000, I was not much interested in gaining access to land in the new resettlement areas. This is despite the fact that I had a solid background in farming. Both my father and grandparents were farmers. During land reform, I was one of those people who were spending most of their time at the bar drinking alcohol. I was not interested. You see, interest in farming has something to do with age. It’s only later in life that I realised that I needed land. I asked myself that, “what will I do when I retire without land?”. That’s when I started to look for some land. I managed to get this place by chance. I bought this place for US$7000 in 2014. I later discovered that the owner of this place was selling it for US$6000 but the middleman added US$1000 for himself. There was no structure and no fence on the farm; it was just ground. The plot is now in my name. The problem with land sales is that there are a lot of scammers these days. But I was lucky as my relative was working as a District Lands Office, and he handled the whole process for me. I managed to transfer the plot into my name and I have an offer letter. On paper, this plot is 33ha but on the ground it’s much bigger than that. It hasn’t been easy coming here. At one point, the councillor told my herder that “your boss is a very pompous man, and we will chase him out of this farm. If we managed to chase away white farmers, we can do the same thing to him”. He was always talking negative stuff about me. The problem with people here is that they involve politics in everything they do.
New external business investors seeking land
In parallel with this process, there is another newer dynamic that is happening in both A1 and perhaps especially in A2 land reform farms. This involves new business investors with limited prior connection to the area. They come with capital, often investing rapidly in building up irrigation infrastructure or livestock rearing facilities, for example. They tend to be quite focused on a particular type of commercial farming – one type of crop or a particular type of livestock production. Some start with renting land in order to establish a base, but many are now seeking to secure more permanent access through purchasing land. Again, this may be backed up by an affidavit, although the legal standing of such documents is unclear.
Who are these new investors? Many are businesspeople from urban areas wishing to diversify their investment portfolio. The economic context for much business is dire, so having a diversity of options is essential. Other businesses can be used to finance agriculture in the absence of loans and other forms of financing, a continued problem in Zimbabwean agriculture. Diaspora money is also important, with intermediaries offering a route to those based in Europe, North America or South Africa for investing at home. Such investors focus on particular projects – beef cattle, a pig production facility, a fish farm or a certain type of crop – while others are buying land speculatively as they cannot manage a project. A Lands Officer in one of our sites commented, “Some people in the diaspora are seeking land for speculative reasons. They are afraid that the land is running out, and there won’t be any land left when they return home upon retirement.” Case 4 is an example of a businessperson who has developed a cattle rearing business across a number of land parcels involving leasing and finally purchase.
Case 4: I was born in 1963 in Mutoko and grew up there. After completing Form 4 in 1978, I came to Harare to seek for employment. In 1980, I then obtained an apprenticeship with National Railways of Zimbabwe where I worked as an engineer until I resigned from the job in 1998. On leaving formal job, I then set up my own car sale business, which I am operating to this day. In 2013, I decided to venture into cattle farming after a friend convinced me to try my hand in cattle farming. When land reform started, I was not interested in farming. Over the years, I have imported a vast number of cattle from South Africa. At one point, my cattle herd increased to over 1000. Today, I own over 300 head of cattle. When I started cattle farming, I was renting farms from A2 farmers in Mashonaland West for US$1.20 per animal per month. In 2020, I then bought an A1 plot from the sabhuku in Mazowe. The sabhukus were selling in the grazing areas. I now have access to 80ha. I use this as my ‘base’. I am renting additional grazing land from an A2 farmer for US$1.20 per animal per month. In 2023, I also bought another A1 plot nearby where I keep over 30 head of cattle. Cattle farming has a potential to generate money, but currently it doesn’t pay very well. But if you are old like me, with no children in school anymore, you can generate enough to pay your medical bills.
Others establish more formalised ‘joint venture’ arrangements – either through the government approval process, or through informal bilateral deals. Former white farmers are important investors, many of whom have continued within the agricultural sector, but not on the land. Joint ventures have really taken off as A2 farmers have struggled to raise funds to invest in their farms. Two cases follow – the first from Matobo and the second from Mvurwi – where deals have been struck with former white farmers to help recapitalise the farm and earn different types of rent. Neither of these have gone down the official route but both are looking to formalise the arrangement.
Case 5: My father acquired an A2 plot (500 ha) in 2002 as a war veteran, but has been struggling to invest in it. Recently, he has entered into a partnership with the neighbouring white farmer, who still owns part of the farm. My father decided to enter into the joint venture as he was not really benefitting from the farm. People from the neighbouring communal areas were constantly cutting fences. He thought that it was better for him to get something from the farm through the joint venture arrangement. The joint venture agreement will be for 20 years. The white farmer plans to build an agricultural college on the plot.
Case 6: In 2022, I entered into a joint venture with a white farmer for 20 ha of land. He was already in joint venture arrangements with neighbouring A2 farmers. When he first approached me with the proposal, I initially refused. I then later accepted after some careful consideration. We are not utilising all the land and we are struggling to pay land tax. Well, it’s not exactly a joint venture to be honest. I would rather call it a “mutual agreement”. Initially, we agreed that we would evaluate and renew the arrangement every season, but he later made some substantial investments on the farm. He installed irrigation infrastructure including a 900 m pipeline from the dam to my plot and moved a centre pivot, so that I can also irrigate my crops. There is now an allowance for 2 to 3 seasons, although its flexible. There are a number of advantages. First, I am also now able to engage in irrigation. Second, he does “proper” land preparations for me such as tractor ploughing, disease spraying and establishment of crops. He also gives me some cash (US$350). He is definitely fair and honest; he honours the agreement.
And in addition to former white farmers, there are Chinese, Indian and other international investors focusing on particular crops, notably tobacco in our Mvurwi study area.
Many such people had not considered land reform areas before. They may have shunned the land reform process earlier as being ‘too political’ and so necessarily insecure. As black opposition supporters and former farmers they may have actively disapproved. Among the former farmers many were hoping that the land would be returned and that their title deeds would be upheld. Meanwhile, others were away and out of country and did not have the networks to gain access to land, especially in the A2 areas. Chinese investors were early movers in joint venture arrangements, especially in the tobacco areas. They often moved between mining and agriculture, and many are now quite established with joint ventures on A2 farms.
Today, attitudes to land reform areas have changed. Although still seen by some as ‘contested areas’, in practice no political grouping believes that the land reform can be reversed. While there remain hot politics in such areas, the room to manoeuvre is far greater today, including for outsiders and increasingly white former farmers, as well as Chinese, Indian and other investors. The lack of clarity over what is possible, and what forms of land security can be offered dissuades some, but there is a massive growth in investment of this sort across the country, although data on the actual extent of this is difficult to estimate.
Challenges for new investors
In contrast to the other new entrants who have close ties with local communities and established farming networks, workers and so on, one of the big challenges faced by many is integration with often tight communities, defined in relation to kin, church and political networks (often in combination). In the early days of the land reform, one of the reflections was that closed, exclusive ‘communities’ had not formed; that they were more ‘open’, ‘flexible’ and ‘welcoming’ to outsiders (including independent women). This may have changed over time as authority structures have been established and, with this, patriarchal forms of power asserted.
Resentments may arise with new entrants are seen as ‘the new whites’, grabbing land from local communities (see Case 3). That such communities have been established for only a couple of decades does not seem to matter, but the definition of an outsider is clear. This makes it difficult (at first) for new entrants to integrate, and to be able to draw on the forms of moral economy and networks of support that rural communities thrive on. Gaining access to labour, support for finance, help with services and so on all have to be negotiated, often at significant cost.
Another challenge faced by such new entrants is a sense of security. Despite the lack of formal tenure arrangements, and the often confused and ambiguous nature of offer letters, permits and so on, those who have been around for a while feel secure, relying on their connections with those in power to provide such security. This is especially the case in A1 areas, but perhaps less so in A2 areas where the vagaries of political patronage and politically instigated pattern of evictions has persisted to create unease.
New entrants therefore seek security through formalisation of land use arrangements. The signing of affidavits, even if completely performative, provide reassurance for some. Many celebrated the acceptance of joint ventures as a legitimate route to investment by the Mnangagwa government. However, the process of formalising such arrangements is by all accounts extremely painful and again subject to political interference, with many preferring to keep to informal arrangements, based in trust relationships between the investor and the farm owner.
How all this will change with the mooted shift in tenure regime is anyone’s guess, but is the topic that the next blog will focus on.
This blog is the second in a short series of blogs on ‘new entrants’. It was written by Ian Scoones and Tapiwa Chatikobo and first appeared on Zimbabweland
COMMENTS