land use and agricultural productivity in zimbabwe

Land Use and Agricultural Productivity in ZimbabweAuthor(s): Dan Weiner, Sam Moyo, Barry Munslow and Phil O'KeefeSource: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 251-285Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/160573 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 12:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Modern African Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 12:19:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/160573?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Journal of Modern African Studies, 23, 2 (1985), pp. 251-285

Land Use and Agricultural Productivity in Zimbabwe

by DAN WEINER, SAM MOYO, BARRY MUNSLOW AND PHIL O'KEEFE*

GIVEN a continuation of current trends, with increasing population growth and declining food production, Southern Africa (excluding South Africa) which could nearly feed itselfduring 1979-8 I, will be only 64 per cent self-sufficient by the turn of the century.1 Zimbabwe has a particularly important role to play in trying to prevent such a disaster. It is by far the most important exporter of food and cash crops in the region, and has been allocated the task of co-ordinating a food-security strategy for the nine member-states ofthe Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, namely Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Reversing the direction of current trends in agriculture is vitally important for regional development. But even nationally, given the numerous problems inflicted by the world recession and the particular difficulties faced in Zimbabwe by several years of drought, along with the economic and political de-stabilisation orchestrated by South Africa, the Zimbabwe African National Union Government cannot fail to be concerned with maintaining and raising agricultural production. As Clever Mumbengegwi has pointed out, although agriculture represents only I 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, it accounts for a third of all formal wage employment, whilst 70 per cent of the nation's population are directly dependent on the land.2 In addition, agriculture earns 40 per cent of the foreign exchange and supplies 40

* Dan Weiner is a Graduate Student at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts; Sam Moyo is a Research Fellow in the Zimbabwe Institute of Development Studies, Harare; Barry Munslow is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Theory and Institutions, University of Liverpool; and Phil O'Keefe is Senior Research Fellow in the Beijer Institute, The International Institute for Energy and Human Ecology, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

I Denis Norman, 'Food Security in SADCC', Seminar on the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, Commonwealth Institute, London, I 9July I984.

2 Clever Mumbengegwi, 'Some Observations on the Problems and Prospects of Socialist Agricultural Transformation in Zimbabwe', 2oth International Summer Seminar on 'Planning for Development and Social Progress in Socialist and Developing Countries', University of Economic Science 'Bruno Leischner', German Democratic Republic, Berlin, June I983.

9 MOA 23



252 WEINER, MOYO, MUNSLOW AND 0 'KEEFE

per cent of the inputs to the manufacturing sector. Maintaining the vitality of the agricultural sector, therefore, is essential for the overall health of the economy.

The focus of much current political debate in Zimbabwe is on whether or not to leave the predominantly white large-scale commercial farms relatively untouched. To date it has often been assumed that levels of productivity, patterns of land use, and overall methods of farming in this sub-sector are overwhelmingly superior to those of local peasant farmers. On the basis of these assumptions, it has been further argued that the Government's land resettlement programmes will have a negative impact on national farm output and marketed surpluses.

The debate on resettlement must be set in the context of the plight of the hundreds of thousands of peasant households crowded into the so-called 'communal areas'.' Quite rightly, the solution to this major problem has been given high priority, not only for the human suffering and misery that is caused by such a situation, but because it also involves a tremendous waste of human and natural resources. At the same time, the Government is concerned that overall production is not jeopardised by land-reform measures. The bulk of the marketed surpluses do currently come from the large-scale commercial farms, and the growth in this sub-sector during the pre-independence period was substantial. However, as a recent commission of enquiry has commented: 'the very real gains in productivity achieved in the large-scale farming sector have been more than offset by the agricultural decline in the communal areas .2 This is the result of the historical role of the African peasantry in a labour-reserve economy, combined with a very poor natural resource base, extreme overcrowding in the former 'Tribal Trust Lands' (as the communal areas were called before independence), and deliberate neglect by the previous regime.

The uneven development of agricultural sub-sectors within Zimbabwe is highlighted by the fact that the bulk of maize purchased by migrant labourers in the communal areas is produced on the large-scale farms. Furthermore, the Government's ability to provide drought relief to 2'5 million people during I982-4 was also dependent on those surpluses. It can be seen that the real challenge lies in overcoming barriers to gains in productivity, and in making the best possible use of all land and labour on a nationwide front. But discussion of these issues has to be

' Barry Munslow, 'Prospects for the Socialist Transition of Agriculture in Zimbabwe', in World Development (Oxford), I3, I, I985, pp. 4I-58.

2 Gordon Chavunduka, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Agricultural Industry (Harare, i982), p. 6.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN ZIMBABWE 253

based on an accurate assessment of the efficiency of land utilisation by the major agricultural sub-sectors - notably the large-scale commercial farms, the communal areas, and the two dominant resettlement models.

In this article, we critically address the question of efficiency in the utilization of the country's prime arable land resources, which are mainly to be found in Mashonaland.

LAND-USE POTENTIAL

Zimbabwe can be subdivided into five agro-ecological zones, as may be seen from Map I. Based primarily on average quantities of rainfall and their variability, these 'natural regions', as they are termed in Zimbabwe, provide a broad framework for evaluating potential land use, as follows:

I. Specialised and diversifiedfarming region. This is confined to the Eastern Highlands Districts and has annual rainfall amounts of over goo mm, with some areas receiving over I ,500 mm annually. Because of the high elevation (above I,700 metres) and lack of frost, the area is well suited to tea, coffee, and forest crops, as well as intensive livestock production.

II. Intensive farming region. This is situated in the Mashonaland highveld around Harare, with a summer rainfall of 750-I,000 mm that tends to be reliable. Maize, the country's staple crop, is well suited to these conditions, as is tobacco, cotton, wheat, other grains, and intensive livestock production. An associated sub-region experiences greater rainfall variability and risk.

III. Semi-intensive farming region. This is best suited for semi-intensive crop and livestock production, with rainfall that totals 65o-8oo mm annually, although intensity and variability increase substantially. Hence, cropping is risky, particularly for maize which requires large quantities of moisture at specific periods for plant development.

IV. Semi-extensive farming region. Livestock is the only sound basis of the farming system in this region, which receives 450-650 mm of rainfall annually, although drought-resistant crops can be grown successfully. Any form of dry-land cropping is risky because of the frequency of mid-season dry spells.

V. Extensive farming region. This includes the hot and dry lowveld of the Zambezi and Sabi-Limpopo valleys, but because the rainfall is both low and erratic, extensive livestock production is the only possible farming system without irrigation.

It can be seen from Table I that only i6-8 per cent of the total area of Zimbabwe possesses the potential for intensive crop and animal

9-2



254 WEINER, MOYO, MUNSLOW AND 0 KEEFE

TABLE I

Land Areas in Zimbabwe by Natural Regions'

Natural Suitable Intensity Land Area Percentage Regions of Land-Use (hectares) of Total

I Specialised and diversified crops 705,000 I-8

II Intensive 5,857,000 I550

III Semi-intensive 7,290,000 I8 7 IV Semi-extensive 14,770,000 37.8 V Extensive 10,450,000 26.7

Total 39,072,000 100'0

production, and that well over half the country is best suited for only livestock rearing. As Map I clearly shows, most of Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land is located in the three Mashonaland Provinces, and hence this is the primary focus of our analysis of actual land-use patterns.

First, however, we need to examine Zimbabwe's agrarian structure as related to these broad environmental zones.

AGRARIAN STRUCTURE

Six distinct agricultural sub-sectors can be identified in Zimbabwe, namely: (I) communal areas, (2) large-scale commercial farms, (3) individual resettlement schemes, (4) co-operative resettlement schemes, (5) small-scale commercial farms, and (6) state farms.

I . Communal Areas

Over half the population of Zimbabwe (57 per cent) live in the communal areas, almost three-quarters of which lie in natural regions IV and V, where dry-land cropping is risky at best. According to the preliminary results of the I 982 census, these marginal lands support as many as 2-65 million people, namely 62 per cent of all those who live in the communal areas or 35 per cent of the total national population.2

This sub-sector has served as labour reserves for the mines, large

1 Source: R. S. Cole, 'The Land Situation in Zimbabwe', in Report of Proceedings of Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy Seminar held in Malawi, 3 April i98i (London, I 98 I).

2 Zimbabwe, Central Statistical Office, 1982 Population Census - a Preliminary Assessment (Harare, 1984).




MO2AMBIQUE

ZAMBIA MASHONALAND WEST MASHONALAND CENTRAL

MHOALND

*Gweru LAND ~IIB

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

\ B Associated s gMIDLon utare

ISpecialised and diversified */ , M l farming region ?>/ ITRAf EJ II A Intensive farming region

VICTORIA

ED IIB Associated sub-region A

OTHBELELAN

E3 III Semi-intensive farming region UT

I V Semi-extensive farming region C]V Extensive frmning region ~

BOTSWANA

0 50 100 150 kilometres SOUTH AFRICA

MAP I

Zimbabwe: Distribution of Natural Regions by Province'

farms, and industries since their demarcation from the turn of the century.2 This has created a permanent preponderance of women, children, and the elderly, whilst young and middle-aged men tend to be migrants. Furthermore, because of an enforced human and livestock population that is excessive for the resource base, this was, and still is,

1 Source: Surveyor-General, Harare, I984. X For an account of the creation of labour reserves in Rhodesia, see Robin Palmer, Land and

Racial Domnaton in Rhodesia (London, 1977); Robin Palmer and Neil Parsons (eds.), The Roots of Rural Poverty in Central and Southern Africa (London, 1977); and Giovanni Arrighi, 'Labor Supplies in Historical Perspective: a study of the proletarianization of the African peasantry in Rhodesia', in Arrighi andJohn S. Saul (eds.), Essays on the Political Economy of Africa (New York and London, 1973)-




under severe stress. Hence, many families are increasingly dependent upon off-farm sources of income for their every-day needs.

Recently, the deterioration of employment prospects has created grave problems for many households in the communal areas. This crisis, we believe, has been caused not by a temporary drought but by a long-term deterioration in the viability of the labour-reserve economy as a whole. This is particularly true for the 2 65 million who live in those marginal lands where 'a good year' means simply producing a bare subsistence crop.

By way of contrast, a small proportion of households thrive in a quite favourable environment. Despite former discriminatory pricing, marketing, and credit conditions, many farmers in these areas have become highly productive. We shall go on to present evidence that questions the stereotypical image ofZimbabwean peasants as intrinsically unproductive and inefficient, as compared with highly mechanised large-scale commercial farmers - who, incidentally receive adequate rainfall and one of the best governmental systems of support - and we shall argue that given the right conditions, peasants will respond with increased production and marketed surpluses, a belief which the bumper peasant harvest of i985 has subsequently confirmed.

2. Large-Scale Commercial Farms (L-SCF)

As many as 4,400 privately-owned large-scale commercial farms are to be found spread across the natural regions.1 However, over three- quarters of the very best land in the country is occupied by approximately 2,600 of such holdings, and in contrast to the communal areas, very little dry-land cropping is done in terrain with marginal rainfall.

This sub-sector produced 75 per cent of the total agricultural output in I98I and over go per cent of what was marketed. Of the Z$398 million in agricultural exports for that year, 56 per cent was derived from L-SCF tobacco, followed by cotton (I 5I per cent), sugar (I3-8 per cent), and maize (8-8 per cent). As a whole, agricultural exports accounted for 46 per cent ofthe total value ofdomestic exports in I 98 I - a level not previously achieved since I 975 These figures underscore the importance of the large-scale commercial farms in generating foreign exchange in the economy. Furthermore, as suggested earlier, they

I Figure derived from discussions with officials of the Commercial Farmers Union, December I983.

2 Agricultural Marketing Authority, Economic Review of Zimbabwe - i982 (Harare, I982).




provided permanent employment for I 65,000, seasonal work for another 56,ooo, and had strong linkages with the service and industrial sectors of the economy.1

But these statistics reveal only certain aspects of the L-SCF sub-sector and others must also be taken into consideration. First of all, the farms depend upon an abundant and cheap labour force. Presently, the minimum wage of Z$55 per month is reckoned to be less than half the estimated poverty datum income level - indeed, the majority of young children in the farm-worker community in Bindura were recently found to be undernourished, based on a weight for age calculation.2 Despite efforts by the Government to lessen the displacement of L-SCF workers after the introduction of the minimum wage, there was a loss of 5I,000 permanent jobs between I980 and I982, while the ratio of workers to cropped hectares declined from 0-47 to 0o37.3 In I983, employment in agriculture registered a further decline of 2-8 per cent.4

Secondly, although analysts are quick to point out that large-scale commercial farms are extremely productive, there has been little research regarding the foreign exchange and other inputs required to achieve their output. For example, tobacco, Zimbabwe's major earner of revenue, needs large quantities of liquid and solid fuels, as well as agro-chemicals.

Finally, despite the high productivity of this sub-sector and its contribution to the national economy, there still remains the big question of how Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land is actually being utilised. For example, although the average size of the 2,626 large-scale commercial farms in Mashonaland was I ,64o hectares, the average area under crops during I981-2 was only I68 hectares for each holding.5 Also, in that year, as many as 468 farms - or I 7 8 per cent of the total number in Mashonaland - did not grow any crops at all.

3. Individual Resettlement Schemes As may be seen from Table 2, most individual resettlement schemes

have been in natural regions III and IV. Under these so-called model A programmes individual families have been allocated 5 hectares of

1 Central Statistical Office, ICA Crop Production Statistics - i98I/82 Crop Season (Harare, i983), and Crop Production of Commercial Farms, I982 (Harare, I983).

2 J. Chikanza, D. Paxton, R. Loewenson, and R. Laing, 'The Health Status of Farm Worker Communities in Zimbabwe', in Central African Journal of Medicine (Harare), 27, 5, i98i.

3 ICA Crop Production Statistics - i98i/2 Crop Season. 4 Financial Gazette (Harare), 3 August 1984. 5 Cropped areas would be slightly higher than areas under crops, as a result of double cropping.




arable land and 5-I5 livestock units, and this has resulted in slight ecological improvements when compared to the communal areas. However, as indicated in Map 3, only a handful of resettlement schemes have been located on the best land in natural region II A, while those to the north and east of Harare in IIB have been primarily on former white farms that were abandoned during the war. Although the stipulation in the Lancaster House Agreement concerning the purchase of land on a willing-seller willing-buyer basis could be circumvented in a variety of ways, the fear of provoking an exodus of settler-farmers and a collapse of production has restrained the Government from taking such measures, and this has effectively restricted the peasantry's access to Zimbabwe's best land.

Under the resettlement programme, migrancy is not allowed. Further- more, the land is owned by the state, and the peasants are told on some schemes what to crop. These heavy controls result from fears of diminished production and from a desire to move from reliance on migrant-labour remittances to the creation of a viable on-farm economy for a (numerically reduced) peasantry. Whether an adequate source of income can be generated by resettlement remains to be seen, particularly in the more marginal areas. It should never be forgotten that poor environmental conditions helped to create the labour reserves in the first place.

4. Co-operative Resettlement Schemes

By August i983, co-operative resettlement schemes occupied a total of only 66,775 hectares, as may be seen from Table 2. It is interesting to note that these so-called model B programmes have generally been allocated good land, primarily since the Ministry concerned was anxious for them to maintain viable large-scale holdings. Because of their ability to utilise sophisticated machinery, the co-operative farms are better suited for natural region II, where the employment of tractors can open up large tracts of potentially arable land that small-scale producers might otherwise have used for grazing livestock. Furthermore, mechanisation can substantially increase the size of workable fields.

5. Small-Scale Commercial Farms

The settler regime earmarked a number of 'African Purchase Areas', as they were called then, in an attempt to create an elite of African farmers with freehold titles. The plan failed as the farms became




TABLE 2

Distribution of Agricultural Land by Natural Region and Agricultural Sub-Sector' hectares

Large-Scale Individual Natural Communal Commercial Resettlements Region Areas % Farms (L-SCF) % Model A %

I I i9,882 0-7 4i8,900 3-0 6,783 0?4 II 1,427,739 8.7 3,982,997 28-6 308,840 I8.5 III 2,798,955 17.1 2,438,772 17'5 782,i87 46.9

IV 7,780,382 47-6 3,5 I 9,o98 25.2 506,702 30-9

V 4,228,622 25.9 3,583,679 25.7 64,721 3.8

Total I 6,355,580 I 3,943,446 I,669,233

Co-operative Small-Scale Natural Resettlements Commercial State Region Model B % Farms (S-SCF) % Farms %

I 14,471 21-7 7,300 0?5 6,457 8-2

II 32,663 48.9 252,100 17.8 1,042 1-3

III i9,641 29.4 536, i00 37-9 14,614 i8-6 IV - 523,000 36.9 22,609 28.7 V 97,600 6-9 33,980 43.2

Total 66,775 1,4I6,I00 78,702

underutilized and as the profits were used for investments in the towns. 2 The resources allocated to this sub-sector have not been sufficient to make a major contribution to the national agricultural marketed surplus despite its size of near IP5 million hectares, as shown in Table 2.

6. State Farms

The Agricultural and Rural Development Authority is responsible for over 20 large-scale highly mechanized farms, most of them irrigated. As may be seen from Table 2, these marginal lands that have been

1 Sources: Communal Areas, Large- and Small-Scale Commercial Farms: Agritex Planning Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, with L-SCF figures adjusted for resettlement until August i983; Resettlement Models A and B: Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Rural Development for the period up to August I 983; and State Farms: Agricultural and Rural Development Authority for the period up toJuly I984.

2 Department of Conservation and Extension, Report on the Agricultural and Extension Situation in African Purchase Areas of Rhodesia (Salisbury, 1977).



260 WEINER, MOYO, MUNSLOW AND 0' KEEFE

~~~~MONAMBIQUE

0 50 10J0 150 klometres SOUTH AFRICA

I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

MAP 2

Zimbabwe: D~istributionl of Large-Scale Commercial Farms and Communal Areas by Natural Region1

opened up for arable production are mainly in natural regions III, IV, and V. Wheat and cotton are the primary crops, although there is substantial diversity. This sub-sector is-expanding steadily because the Government sees this as a positive step towards reducing the country's

1 Source; Surveyor-General, Harare, 1979.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN ZIMBABWE 26i

dependence on large-scale commercial holdings.1 To date, there has been little attempt to develop state farms in the natural region II area of Mashonaland.

Although there are now six distinct agricultural sub-sectors, the post-colonial pattern of land use has seen the continuation of the historical process whereby particular systems of farming have been located in various natural regions. For the most part, crops are grown on the large-scale commercial farms in natural region II and the better parts of III, while most of the remaining areas are used for grazing, with the exception of the irrigated lowveld. The only significant modification in the agrarian structure of Zimbabwe since independence has been the transition of sections of natural regions II B, III, and IV from large-scale grazing to small-scale farming and grazing, as may be seen from Map 3 which shows the distribution of resettlement schemes. There has been virtually no change in the size or positioning of the communal areas or small-scale commercial farms, while the state sub-sector has been created almost exclusively in the semi-arid natural regions.

The current agricultural controversy is taking place against the background of the historical emergence of a labour-reserve economy in Zimbabwe. Over a period of time, holdings were consolidated to create the various sub-sectors that are characterised not only by the quality of land but also by their access to, or exclusion from (to varying degrees), the necessary inputs for successful farming practices. This bred a deep resentment amongst the peasantry, as they were herded onto marginal lands where population growth rates, and an inability to practice traditional shifting agriculture, placed increasing stress upon their holdings, resulting in soil erosion and exhaustion. The problem of the communal areas stems from an over-intensive use of the scarce arable land and the overwhelming predominance of grazing pastures, which necessity dictates be used for cropping, with predictable poor results. Land hunger, not unnaturally, became the burning issue, fuelling widespread rural support for the armed nationalist struggle, with independence only finally attained in I 98o. But the land question has still to be resolved. Statements by the governing party, emphasised in particular at the August 1984 Z.A.N.U. Congress, lay stress on

' This was discussed with officials of the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority in October I983.




ensuring maximum productivity whilst making provision for land reform, including greater equity in holdings.

The essence of the agricultural grievances by Africans is that not only was much of their land taken away from them by European farmers, but that this also happened to be the most suitable for crop production. On the other hand, those opposed to any major redistribution argue that it is the advanced production techniques used by the large-scale commercial farms, as well as their full utilisation of the good arable land, which creates Zimbabwe's surpluses, and that if these are jeopardized by 'reforms', then disaster will follow. The arguments of equity and those for growth are thus polarised.

The land question has increasingly come to focus on the merits of resettlement. Arguments have raged over the actual numbers that must be moved as a result of the chronic shortage of land in those restricted areas designated as 'African reserves' under colonial and settler rule. From there, the question has turned to how many could be resettled, and this is where most of the contention lies. In response to the Government's call for 'Growth with Equity ',i much of the agrarian debate has tended to centre around the argument that equity in land distribution can only be undertaken in so far as this does not impede growth.

In order to break this polarization between the 'growth' and 'equity' factions, it is necessary to consider the relative success and failure of all agricultural sub-sectors, notably as regards (I) their land availability, (2) their intensity of land use, (3) their agricultural productivity, and (4) their resource utilization. Such an analysis will begin to allow a comparative appreciation of the range of future possibilities for Zimbabwean agriculture.

LAND AVAILABILITY

The post-independence pattern of land use has been praised by several analysts as being the most pragmatic and, indeed, rational direction for national development to take. One internally influential source has been the Whitsun Foundation, which produced a major study in response to the publication of the Government's I 982 Develop- ment Plan.2 The authors argue that to resettle the I62,000 families targeted by the Government would require taking ten million hectares of land from the large-scale farmers: 'This would strike at the productive

I Government of Zimbabwe, The First Transitional Development Plan: i982/85 - i984/85 (Harare, I982).

2 Whitsun Foundation, Land Reform in Zimbabwe (Harare, i983).




core of commercial agriculture and into the country's self-sufficiency'.1 They stress that given the high population growth rate, and with the likelihood of only a modest increase in commercial farm productivity in the future (in contrast to the late i96os and early I970s), the food outlook is not automatically secure. They go on to state explicitly:

In particular the success or failure of the country will depend upon the efficiency of the farmers of Mashonaland North, and the point must be made that there is not much under-utilised land in this region and that very high standards of crop production already apply.2

In building up their case for intensive land utilisation by the commercial farmers, the authors of the Whitsun Foundation report try to show how only a very limited area of land is available for intensive arable production. They produce a figure of 7 per cent of the country as suitable for intensive dryland crop production. They then quote approvingly the i982 findings of a study made by Hawkins Associates for the World Bank, namely that the utilisation of net arable land ranged between 57 7 and 127-5 per cent, with double cropping, in five of the six intensive conservation areas assessed in the country's main cropping region.3

This conclusion differs substantially from other work carried out on the same topic. Indeed, an earlier report by the Whitsun Foundation found that the ratio of cropped to total area in 1974 was only 4 I per cent for the white farmers, 8 per cent for the African purchase lands, and 104 per cent for the tribal trust lands.4 This would indicate, given the large proportion of potential arable land owned by the white farmers out of their total land holding, that intensity of land use was below that which was later claimed, and that peasant farmers were using a much greater proportion of the arable land available to them. Roger Riddell supports this view by suggesting that only 15 per cent of the potentially arable area within the entire L-SCF sub-sector was cultivated in I 976.5 However, because these figures are national aggregates they cannot be directly compared with the results of the study by Hawkins Associates. Hence our need to focus on the dominant cropping region of Mashonaland.

I Ibid. p. v. 2 Ibid. p. 55. 3 Hawkins Associates, Investigation into the Intensity of Land Utilization in Selected Farming Areas of

Zimbabwe (Washington, D.C., i982). An 'intensive conservation area' is an administrative boundary within the large-scale commercial farms areas. There are 46 I.C.A.'s in the three Mashonaland Provinces.

4 Ian M. Hume, Agriculture in Rhodesia (Salisbury, I977), p. 3. 5 Roger C. Riddell, The Land Problem in Rhodesia: alternatives for the future (Gwelo, I978).




Ln~~~~~~~~~~ U,0 C) o Ct CO C) C0 ):) ? C0 o o0 r-) o o:) c_

cr . c0 - N ce cs H o ,o

00 0n

0 ' g - I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0~~~~~~c cn04- 00

~~~~O v 00 00 C5D N c C4 t- Cn vn + c 0 P- P- C) It-

~~ ce N c<") ce ce tr) trn ) dn zn c co q CO C4 C4 C co

ci~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 4-J ~ ~ ~ -

co Y v 0n o - n CO -t C C4 co ? co 00 O co 00 o0 v r-

0 -&bCO (b' -1 - t l0o"', n Q ~ - O' "i CO 0

o0 -I -, --coc

r-o co - 4 CO - (0 ; CO co~0~~00O~ ~

.s X X ? r o m 1- ? ? d<O~o O n Cm N . "i CO co m l

0- ~ o > t- > 0 c c N co 0 4 0 0 *u

o I ~~~~~~~~~~~~ool I -1 oCOo--I'C c O 0Q20 0~-I 1oa Io00+

0 0) 0 0 U ,3Ce qNI?d O - O dn 00 CCO 0 . Y~~~ 0 q ? qI 0~0 0 0 04 ( .-0 04 ? )I2 - qu

)l C~ c~ co cro N 0U 0 - o CO o : ., (I C 0 D Co C O U) CO

; Ho~~~~~~4- 1 00 00 2 0404 0 30: qo

0 I N~ t 000r- C4 N C 0) co - 0 4 L C

u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bC n ?~ CbC Q b C C~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /

0/2 0 )tCc r- 0 'c00 CO

00 0 t4 1 o -1- CI

- s-I~~~~~~~- O"

o ?? mo~ot-- - ) 0 CO C o o Co

-l - - -'55 . ~~ O0 4

0lC 0uI02'- 04CO ~ ).I 0

o U0X H o

.0

0 -I) n0CO " - -) U)o L

C0- 0.) s-I o 0 - --t 0)Ul) c 2 c

l 0 0 n ) C ? 3o

co co CO0 - - 0nJ s-I.- 0~~~~~~~~~~C~C




~~~MOgAMBIQUE

V V 26

VIV 38< Mutaeru AHrea re

Index to intensive > ? 2> resettlement schemesU wy z Mavno )/ I Sengezi 27 Pfmra *+. 15 . dP5> :<wA )24Jr {^4243 2 Sote Source 28 Muzvezve l_ .: 3 IUmfurudzi 29 Kotanai cIV / 2 M 4 Mukosi 30 Chievirievi 5 t > - 4 9 6 Mayo 32 Mushand4ike , - 3 1 2 7 Mupssdei 33 Inyanga South 'e 9 8 Nyagundi 34 MufusireBulaw 9 Muozi 35 Tokwe Gamwe t Namouzizi 36 Shinja _ 48

11 Mvimvi 37 Kotanai It 12 Nyadhiri 38 Mutanda / 13 Mutanda 39 Nyama South 14 Umgusa 40 Pose 15 Domodema 41 Rusitu 16 Copper Queen 42 Gwenei BOTSWANA 17 Nyagadza 43 Nyamazuru 18 Sengezi (B) 44 Mesengezi 19 Gaeresi 45 Gutu South 20 Hoyuyu 46 Pfura It SOUTH AFRICA 21 Murare 47 Wanezi 22 Bembezi 48 Matopos South 23 Chechera 49 Shobi Block 0 50 1 00 1 50 kilometres 24 Devuli 50 Wedza Block 25 Chinyika 51 Lot 6 of Jompemhbi 26 Umfurudzi 52 Karna Block

MAP 3

Zimbabwe: Distribution of Resettlement Schemes by Natural Region'

There have been a few attempts to estimate the intensity of land use in parts of Mashonaland. A. G. Davies suggests that in the I970-I season the hectarage under crops and lying fallow in the Mazowe valley was only 23-3 per cent of the total area, even though the potentially arable land ranged between 38 and 79 per cent.2 For the I973-4 crop season, R. W. J. Ellis-Jones calculates that even though at least 40 per

1 Source: Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development, June Iq83. 2 A. G. Davies, 'Land Use in the Mazoe Valley- Land Capability Classification', in Rhodesia

Agricultural Journal (Salisbury), 73, 3, May-June I976.



266 WEINER, MOYO MUNSLOW AND 0 KEEFE

cent of the intensive conservation area in Harare South is classified as arable only 4-7 per cent of the total was under crops.' As can be seen, the evidence is conflicting and, furthermore, research on this question in Zimbabwe has been minimal.

In Table 3, we try to untangle the debate by laying out the different criteria by which assessment of land use can be made.2 For example, Riddell was referring to the percentage being cropped out of the total arable land available, as shown in column E - our figures are slightly higher because our focus is regional and not national. The figure of 23-3 per cent arrived at by Davies for the I970-I season refers to the land being cropped as a proportion of the total area, as shown in column C - our calculation for the Mazowe District (one of the most intensively cropped in the whole country) is i6-8 per cent, and if we add the land left fallow (one year in three) then the figure comes to 252 per cent. Similarly, the claim by Ellis-Jones that only I I * 75 per cent of the land classified as arable was being cultivated in the intensive conservation area of Harare South is comparable with our calculation of I6-2 per cent for Harare District, as shown in column E.

Whilst our statistics and those of the above three authors would appear to reinforce each other, the same cannot be said concerning the findings of the Hawkins Associates which suggest that crops have been grown on most of the potentially arable land. Even if we increase our 33-7 per cent in column G for the whole of Mashonaland by adding the land left fallow, it looks as if only about half of the net arable land is being utilised both for cropping and fallow. Furthermore, as we shall go on to argue, the figures in column G represent an extremely conservative estimate of net available arable land because of a reliance on a land-use planning model which considers only viability for large-scale mechanised units. We would prefer to present a range of calculations concerning the potentially arable land available from this minimum extreme up to the Ministry of Agriculture's estimated total.

The Government requires reliable data in order to make a realistic assessment of the possibilities for resettlement. The need to maintain and expand production whilst continuing and improving this exercise is vital. No sane participant in the current debate would wish to see the elimination of the truly efficient white commercial farmers. They surely will have an important role in keeping up production for many years

1 R. W. J. Ellis-Jones, 'Land Tenure and Obstacles to Rural Development', M.Sc. thesis, University of Reading, I975.

2 The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of Kumbirayi Munasirai of the Beijer Institute and the Department of Land Management, University of Zimbabwe, who helped to compile the statistics in this table.




to come. However, an accurate assessment of the under-utilised component of the nation's limited prime agricultural land could serve not only to guarantee that the hectarage being productively farmed on a commercially large scale is left safely intact, but also that any land of good arable potential not being so utilised should be allocated to assuage the land hunger of the peasants, and thereby to increase the total national agricultural output.

The Commercial Farmers Union predicted during i982 that if nine million hectares of large-scale farming land were taken over to resettle i62,000 families, as the National Plan indicates, then there would be serious shortfalls in the production of beef from i984 onwards, and of maize and cotton from the following year.1 The weekly Financial Gazette (Harare) echoed these feelings in an article entitled 'Resettlement Plan could Destroy our Agriculture', published on I 8 November I983. Such pessimism has received a much wider international audience in a recent survey of Zimbabwe:

Perhaps 40 per cent of the resettlement could be on farms that were either abandoned or badly used. The rest would involve taking over land that was well farmed and highly productive. Since the commercial farms produce 8o per cent of Zimbabwe's agricultural output and 35 per cent of all its exports, the resettled land will need to be farmed just as well if the country is to avoid a financial and human disaster.2

By way of contrast, even a preliminary consideration of the current land-use patterns in natural region II alone seems to suggest that within the L-SCF sub-sector there is under-utilisation of much high-potential land that could be devoted to resettlement.

INTENSITY OF LAND USE

We need first of all to examine the evidence on the intensity of land use both by the large-scale commercial farms and in the model A and B sub-sectors, because much of the debate has focused predominantly on what happens if the former are taken over for resettlement purposes.

I. Large-Scale Commercial Farms

The results of a recent extensive survey of land utilisation for the entire L-SCF sub-sector in the three Mashonaland Provinces are presented in Table 3 for the cropping year I98I-2, incorporating most of natural

Internal Memorandum, Commercial Farmers Union, Harare, 20 May 1982. 2 The Economist (London), 2i April 1984.




region II nationally, and a small portion of III. As can be seen from column A, the figures for the I4 Mashonaland Districts add up to 4-3 million hectares, which is 32 per cent of the national total for the large-scale commercial farm sub-sector. The land being cropped amounts to 440,247 hectares (column B): namely, IO per cent of the total area of Mashonaland (column C), and 75 per cent of the entire L-SCF cropped area in Zimbabwe.

Column D indicates the total arable area as estimated from a io per cent sample of farm plans compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture over the past 30 years. Based on an evaluation of aerial photographs, soil samples, and angle of slopes for specific farms, the plans identify potential arable land. Extrapolating from our sample, we derived an aggregate of I 92 million hectares, or 44-6 per cent of the total area of Mashonaland. Column E shows that the percentage of total arable area actually cropped in i98I-2 ranged from 8 in Mutoko District to 37 6 in Bundura District, and that the most intensively cropped Province was Mashonaland Central with 33-3 per cent. Overall, only 229 per cent of the total arable area of Mashonaland was under crops that year.

These percentages, however, can be misleading because not all arable lands are available to farmers. Hence Riddell only produces a figure for the total actually cropped, which is in real terms too low at I5 per cent.1 In our Table 3, the net arable area (column F) has been calculated using the two-step method adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture officials in their farm plans:'

(i) The original area mapped as arable has been reduced by an average of 20 per cent to account for land lost by the squaring of fields and the construction of roads and homesteads, as well as by the existence of pockets that are inaccessible, given an assumption of mechanised large-scale units and marginal areas. (2) A further reduction of i5 per cent has been made because of land lost for mechanical conservation measures, contouring, access roads, and artificial waterways.

When making such calculations, specifically for the L-SCF sub-sector, the Ministry of Agriculture was considering full tractorisation and large homesteads, and was ignoring small pockets of good land. Obviously, any estimate of net arable area must be based upon a particular farming model, and in this regard, small-scale farmers are better adapted to utilising to the maximum the land potentially available for intensive

1 Riddell, op. cit. 2 The Ministry of Agriculture's method is outlined in detail in 'Lecture Notes for Land-Use

Planning', Harare, n.d.




cropping. Employing the methods used by the Agricultural, Technical, and Extension Services (Agritex) in the Ministry of Agriculture, and assuming that 30 per cent of the total area of natural region II was potentially net arable land, only 4-5 per cent of the nation's prime arable land is available for intensive dryland crop production.1 This is not particularly impressive for a country frequently referred to as the breadbasket of the S.A.D.C.C. region.

Column G of Table 3 indicates that even with our conservative assumptions as regards potentially net arable land, the most intensively cultivated Districts, Bindura and Mazowe, only produce crops on slightly over half of the available hectarage, while the comparable figures for Mashonaland as a whole, and for the East Province alone, are 33-7 and 2I9 per cent, respectively, for I98I-2. During that season, therefore, 866,oG I hectares (column H) of the nation's prime agricultural land were not being cropped, and even if 240,000 hectares of fallow are subtracted, the net figure is higher than that for the land being cropped in the entire large-scale commercial farm sub-sector of Mashonaland.

As may be seen graphically in Map 4, there are few district-level variations of net arable land cropped (column G) for Mashonaland Central and West compared with East. Confirmation is also provided for the Whitsun Foundation's assertion that Mashonaland North (now called Central) is the most intensively cropped Province in the region.

To obtain a more realistic estimate of the under-utilisation of arable land, an assessment of the net area available to the peasantry would be required, and unfortunately no such calculation exists. Furthermore, land use by small-scale farmers can vary tremendously with different forms of production organisation. The best that we can do is to provide a range between an assumption concerning the availability of total (an overestimate) and net (an underestimate) arable land. Turning back to Table 3, we can see that between 22'9 and 33 7 per cent of potentially arable land (total and net) was cropped in all of Mashonaland during the 1981-2 season. If we include 240,000 hectares of fallowed land, the range becomes 35 to 52 per cent. What thesefigures suggest is that roughly two-thirds to one-half of 2Zimbabwe's prime agricultural land is being neither cropped norfallowed.2

l Our figure is significantly smaller than the Whitsun Foundation's estimate of 7 per cent, because they were counting total arable land for a wider geographical area (i.e. including Manicaland).

2 Rotations of planted pasture and fodder crops have been included as part of total cropped area in C.S.O. statistics. In the I 98 I-2 crop year, there was 46,7I2 hectares under planted pasture and I I,440 under fodder crops.




In order to evaluate the utilization of the remaining arable and non-arable areas, it is necessary to make a crude assessment of the intensity of animal production. According to our calculations, there were nearly 6oo,ooo livestock units in Mashonaland by the end of the i98I-2 season and if, say, 8o per cent of the total non-cropped land is available for grazing (which eliminates 773,ooo hectares), this means 5 25 hectares per unit.' Determining optimal stocking rates for the whole of Mashonaland is not possible, as local variations are high, but senior planners in Agritex have suggested that 2-3 hectares per livestock unit for natural region II are desirable.2 Furthermore, M. Rodel and J. Boultwood have recently characterized a stocking rate of 4 hectares per livestock unit on pasture as light grazing. As a result of their experiments at the Henderson Research Station, Mazowe, stocking rates of less than I hectare per livestock unit were considered as intensive grazing.3 Our crude estimates have not enabled us to assess the distribution of livestock on arable and non-arable lands. We do know that 724 farms in Mashonaland, or 27-6 per cent of the total, had no beef or dairy cattle at all in I982,4 although it is hard to determine exactly what this means. On the one hand, the farmers might have had large arable tracts out of any type of production, signifying gross land under-utilisation; on the other hand, they might have had many hectares of potentially arable land that were either cropped or fallowed, with the remaining land being too poor to make livestock production profitable.

Despite such ambiguities, we still feel that our preliminary assessment means that the under-utilisation of prime arable areas cannot be justified on the grounds that they are being used intensively for livestock production. Clearly more research needs to be done on this question. Furthermore, agricultural planners must seriously evaluate whether it is rational (in terms of national land use) to utilise the country's limited prime agricultural land for livestock production, even although it may be quite rational for the economies of individual farmers.

The extent of irrigation also needs to be assessed when considering the intensity of land-use. Just over half of the total L-SCF irrigated areas in Zimbabwe are in the wetter regions of Mashonaland. Of the 84,640

I This does not include the 58,I52 hectares under planted pasture and fodder crops. Furthermore, crop residues are often used for feeding.

2 Private communication with authors, June I 984. This stocking rate is based on what planners feel is ecologically sustainable in the region.

3 M. Rodel and J. Boultwood, 'The Effects of Intensive Grazing of Pastures on the Density of Soil under such Pastures', in Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal (Harare), 78, 6, i98i.

4 Central Statistical Office, Livestock on Commercial Farms - 1982 (Harare, i982).




hectares irrigated during the I981-2 season, only 34 per cent were double cropped during the winter, and these 29,000 hectares amount to a mere 6-6 per cent of the area under crops that year,1 or 2'2 per cent of the total net arable area available. What these figures suggest is that the bulk of irrigation in the L-SCF sub-sector is for supplementary watering during Zimbabwe's wet summer season. Winter cropping, albeit an important feature, does not significantly alter the intensity by which Mashonaland's potentially arable land is utilised.

2. Model A Resettlement Schemes As already indicated, peasant familial production has a greater

potential for utilising a higher percentage of arable land, because the unit of operation is itself smaller. Hence, it is seemingly ironic that model A resettlement schemes have been criticised for their inefficient use of potential arable land. Each family is allocated 5 hectares of arable land for cropping, an area for the homestead, and sufficient land to maintain 5-15 livestock units, depending on the natural region. But critics have correctly suggested that the areas allocated for grazing purposes really make the supposedly intensive programme extensive when it comes to land use. A recent Ministry of Agriculture survey has estimated that on average 3-4 of the 5 hectares allocated were being cropped,3 and this means that only 9-12 per cent of the total allocated area is being so utilised. Certainly this is low for schemes in better natural regions. However, if we look back to column C in Table 3 we can see that the proportion of the total area currently cropped in the L-SCF sub-sector is similar - merely 10 2 per cent.

Zimbabwe's model A resettlement programme was conceived before independence. It is based on the same principles of land-use planning that the Ministry of Agriculture had employed for 30 years; namely, conservative use of potentially arable land along with extensive livestock grazing. It is not surprising, therefore, that the intensities of land use for model A resettlement schemes and large-scale commercial farms in natural region II are similar: both are inefficient users of prime arable land.

I The area under crops was 440,247 hectares in I98I-2 (column B, Table 3). This refers to the geographical area cropped, not the total number of hectares cropped.

2 According to Bill Kinsey, the average holding per family is 89 hectares in natural region IV and 33 hectares in natural region II; 'Emerging Policy Issues in Zimbabwe's Land Resettlement Program', in Development Policy Review (London, Beverly Hills, and New Delhi), Is, i983, Table 3, p. I79.

3 Ministry of Agriculture, The First Annual Report of Farm Management Data for Small Farm Units (Harare, I984).




TABLE 4 Mashonaland Cropping Intensity for Model B Schemes,

I982-3 Crop Season' hectares

Area Under Total Potentially Province Total Area Crops % Cropped Arable Area

A B C D

Mashonaland East 8,630 364 4-2 3,426

Mashonaland Central 8,269 343 3.8 2,976

Mashonaland West 5,2 I 2 I 64 3 I,694

Total 22,I I I 871 39 8,o96

Percentage of Arable Land Total Arable

Province % Cropped Cleared % Cropped Land Cleared

E F G H

Mashonaland East io-6 2,915 12'5 85

Mashonaland Central ii-6 2,i65 I5-8 73

Mashonaland West 9 7 482 34 0 28

Total Io08 5,562 I 5.7 69

3. Model B Resettlement Schemes

Theoretically, the co-operative farms are supposed to have high levels of arable land utilisation. Farm plans for model B schemes in Mashonaland indicate planned cropping rotations which utilise annually 50-I oo per cent of the net potentially arable land. Although it is too early to know whether or not these farms will reach such levels of cropping intensity, recent evidence suggests that the initial plans could be unrealistic.

A survey of I2 model B schemes conducted during the I982-3 crop season is summarised in Table 4. Collected by the Ministry of Lands,

1 Source: Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Rural Development, Harare, I984.




0 OQ U 'r 0) OOQU

-.2 o _0 00 cse<Xno < 4X

E :L4

CO C 0

- oz c~~oc~ o~ .1 0

(2 i N- -

: = ? b m Or co t or -n + 00

clQ

E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Y

;~~~~~~~~~c I'l 0 = w N co ul n co O I'O In

0 m

,id cd 0 O o H X 0 0 cbX i i - > o " " 00 c i o8 '- Ul j 'Q @ { 1O 1O

n Sn + N N tc

0 " ~ -

C -

4

On C)L O

~~~~~~~~~~~-4~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- H - w

O- LO

O- L ob?+ mot s ? z> O c 0

CC)~~~~ 0r O -

Q z -, C's c c.(c,4~ ~ e ~ -

Y 0= ;Y m;

o 0

Hz H Q

-w c= 0 0

U X ~ o X b ? Q o

u o 00

-

?-_~~~~~~~~~~ cLO 0 LO> 00+ oN 0 o c

,S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C C:5 OX 'S'

C~~~~~~~~~~~' b- cl cd N3 CC 0 0 O ti ? ?8 00 NcL 00 LO ) C? :

4 vQ - t- Lo 0) - O Lo C) 00

0~~~~ c l0 w~ t U ?>t

-S Q =~~C' N 01 r. c.l dQE < |




Resettlement, and Rural Development, we present these data with extreme caution. First of all, with the exception of one scheme, the farms were all established in I981-2. Secondly, the survey was conducted during a severe drought (which could considerably reduce the area planted). Thirdly, model B farms have been severely hampered by a lack of financing which has led to their severe under-capitalisation. The establishment of adequate levels of credit, extension, and managerial assistance has also been a problem during this initial phase of the programme,

Table 4 indicates that at this early stage, model B farms utilise less of their total potentially arable land when compared with model A schemes and the L-SCF sub-sector. Ranging between 9 7 and I I 6 per cent (column E), this is approximately half the level of the cropping intensity for the L-SCF sub-sector, as shown previously in Table 3. It can be seen that whereas 85 per cent of the total potentially arable area has been cleared in Mashonaland East, the figure is only 28 per cent in Mashonaland West and 69 per cent for all of Mashonaland (column H). This increased the current level of cropping intensity somewhat (column G), but more importantly, this is further evidence of land under-utilisation within the L-SCF sub-sector as these model B farms were former large-scale commercial farms. Table 4 also suggests that it is possible that one inefficient user of the nation's prime agricultural land is being replaced by another.

Table 5 attempts to explain current land-use patterns for these I2 model B schemes. During the i982-3 crop season, it can be seen that from 4' 7 to 24- 2 per cent of the total potentially arable area was cropped (column E), a much higher level of variation than indicated previously. It would appear that three of the schemes (Kuenda, Nyamakate, and Mauya) are utilising most of the areas cleared on their farms for cropping and fallowing, while another two (Kwaedza and Mt. St. Mary's) have cropping intensities comparable with the average for large-scale farms in that Province. At the farm level, it appears that some of the co-operatives are doing quite well, particularly considering their newness and the difficult climate - in all senses - under which they are operating.

The Mashonaland average for all model B farms is crucial for the analysis: the total area is I,842 hectares, of which 675 are potentially arable and 464 are actually cleared. Each farm has an average of I4 working tractors (although it can be seen that two have none and seven have only one), with 64 adult members. If their total arable area was utilised fully on a 66 per cent rotation basis they would need to crop




445 hectares annually, but this figure must be reduced to 303 hectares if only the net arable area is assumed to be available for cropping. Given the human, capital, and other constraints already discussed, we do not see how a model B farm can be expected to crop somewhere between 303 and 445 hectares annually.

The average figures for large-scale commercial farms in Mashonaland help us to get to the crux of the matter. The figures for total and arable areas are remarkably similar. The average L-SCF crops over twice as much land with an adult labour force not much less than that available on a co-operative farm. However, it has on average 6-5 tractors,' and a tremendous government and private-sector support system. So why were only i68 hectares cropped on average per farm? According to a recent World Bank report:

Present average cropped area per LSC farmer is about I2o ha. This is probably close to the optimum farm size in terms of cropped ha. that can be successfully managed by a farmer and his family (with existing mechanical equipment) when considering the particular crops grown - part of them irrigated - and also taking in account that many of the farms run livestock as well. Therefore, when looking at the prospects of commercial farming, it is unrealistic to expect the average farm to increase its cropped average five to eight fold (from I20 ha. to iooo ha. possibly available), even if capital resources were available to do so.2

This view, while shedding light on the under-utilisation of large-scale commercial farms, is fundamentally flawed. Recently, the Ministry of Agriculture conducted a survey of I IO farms in four intensively cultivated areas in Mashonaland during the i983-4 season. In Karoi and Wenimbi, each farm averaged 5 tractors, with I 36 and I 68 cropped hectares, respectively, mainly maize and tobacco. In Glendale and Umfuli, each farm averaged 8 tractors, with 54I and 344 cropped hectares, respectively, mainly maize and cotton, since the production of tobacco was minimal.3

These figures suggest that the 'optimal' area that should be cropped per farm is highly variable. It would appear that land-use intensities are lower in areas that grow tobacco because of the common rotation

I We have visited farms in Mashonaland with over ten tractors. The figure also excludes the 628 combines used in the sub-sector that year.

2 D. H. van der Sluijs, 'Prospects for the Commercial Farming Sector', in World Bank, Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Study (Washington, D.C., I 983), p. I 9. Our estimate of average cropped area is higher because we are including the Mashonaland region only.

3 Data obtained from Ministry of Agriculture, July I 984.




with maize and three years of grass (for nematode control) that is currently practised in Zimbabwe, as well as the high value of the crop per hectare. The relationship between capital availability and area cropped is also evident at the sub-sectoral level. For example, the total area cropped on large-scale commercial farms has not varied greatly since I975, apart from the I978 and I979 war years. However, farm units have declined by one-third, whilst the number of self-propelled combine harvesters has doubled from I88 to 377. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, farm employment has been dropping steadily, particularly since independence.

The point here is that land-use and capital intensity are intrinsically linked. The evidence suggests that capital is replacing labour in Mashonaland, while the size of the farm unit is growing. Furthermore, levels of land-use intensity have increased slightly, as has the level of differentiation within the sub-sector. The World Bank report concludes that current levels of mechanical equipment and management practice prohibit any substantial increase in cropped area. We feel, however, that the figures discussed above suggest that capital, not management, is the key constraint. It is our conclusion that given the existing agrarian structure of Mashonaland, large infusions of capital, often at the expense of labour, would be necessary to utilise a substantially higher percentage of potentially arable land for crops in the L-SCF sub-sector.

We can now quite clearly see a major problem with model B farms, and in land-use planning in Mashonaland in general. These co-operative settlements have usually been established on former large-scale farms and, as indicated in Table 5, are too large to be used to their full potential given the capital resources of the settlers. The replacement of one set of inefficient users of good land by another is not a coincidence, because these moves are being devised by the same people in the Ministry of Agriculture, utilising the same kind of land-use planning that has occurred for over a generation. This method is based on an artificial land surplus, the extensive grazing of livestock, and a very conservative approach to soil erosion control - and the same is true for model A schemes. It is only in the communal areas, where limited land-use planning has taken place, that intensities of cropping are high - indeed, they have become too high, leading to serious environmental degradation. Clearly land-use planning in independent Zimbabwe must find a middle ground between the two extremes of over- and under-utilisation of the resource base. The resettlement programme, to date, has been more concerned to save soil than to accommodate land-hungry peasants. But both objectives must be considered.




4. Communal Areas

It is both ironic and indicative of the problem that the communal areas exhibit the highest percentage of cropping on potentially arable land. Although detailed research on land use in the communal areas of Mashonaland is lacking, R. Whitlow's pioneering work does provide useful estimates stratified by natural region on a national scale.' He has concluded that 42-2 per cent of the total communal area was either cropped or fallowed in natural region II, a figure that corresponds very closely with our estimate. This suggests that farmers in the communal areas have opened up most of the land deemed arable for cropping and significantly more of the net arable area available, if the Agritex method is used. Whitlow's study indicates similar intensities of land use in natural regions III and IV, where the cropped and fallowed areas are 33 I and 23 -I per cent, respectively.

Whitlow's data clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of the Agritex method in evaluating potentially arable land, while providing insights into the serious environmental problems within the communal areas. Presently, the natural regions designated for intensive production are being farmed extensively, whereas lands that should only be utilised in an extensive manner are being farmed and grazed intensively.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

The agrarian debate has brought to the surface a common belief that the peasants in Zimbabwe are inherently unproductive, and that their replacement of large-scale commercial farms would lead to dramatic reductions of marketable surpluses. This belief is supported by several reports and articles which compare yields for the two sub-sectors. For example, according to the Zimbabwe Agricultural and Economic Review in i982, 'the commercial producer averages a yield of marginally over 5 tonnes per ha. (5,ooo kg), while the non-commercial producer averages less than I tonne per ha. ';2 and in I 983 the World Bank, using the work of J. Tattersfield, suggested that average maize yields for the L-SCF sector are 4,726 kg per hectare, and only 695 kg per hectare in the communal areas.3 The information brochure put out by the Commercial

I R. Whitlow, 'An Assessment of Cultivated Lands in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, I972-I977', in The Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Science News (Harare), I3, IO, 1979,

2 Modern Farming Publications, Zimbabwe Agricultural and Economic Review (Harare, I 982), p. 73. ' J. Tattersfield, 'The Role of Research in Increasing Food Crop Potential in Zimbabwe', in The Zimbabwe Science News (Harare), I 6, s, I 982, and World Bank, Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Study, I983.



278 WEINER, MOYG, MUNSLOW AND 0 'KEEFE

TABLE 6 Comparison of Maize Yields'

kg/hectare

Large-Scale Communal Areas Natural Commercial Farms, II and IV, Regions I974-5 to I978-9a i98i-2 to I9823b

IIA 5,827 3,913

IIB 4,164 3,913 III 2,791 I,6io IV 2,3I0 824

a These yield figures are the averages for the top eight intensive conservation areas in each natural region, and were computed by Peter Ivy.

' The estimated yields for natural regions II and IV were compiled byJ. dejong in 1983 during the two drought years of i98i-2 and 1982-3. The yield for natural region III has been estimated from Agritex's 1983 Wedza baseline study, also derived from the drought year i98i-2.

Farmers Union also uses similar figures for their arguments against 'land reform'.

But it is necessary to ask how meaningful is any comparison of high inputs on favourable land with low-input farming on marginal land? When we break down yields according to natural regions in order to monitor the effect of land quality, a different picture emerges altogether, as we see in Table 6, which shows a strong correlation between yield and natural region for both farming systems. Furthermore, the absurdity of simply comparing aggregated average yields by sector is also clearly demonstrated.

The high productivity of the communal area farms under more favourable environmental conditions in Mashonaland was recently highlighted by the Director of Agritex who described their I 984 output of cotton and maize in natural region II as 'remarkable' and a 'breakthrough', and suggested that some oftheir yields were comparable with those of adjacent large-scale commercial farms. He also claimed that their 'soil conservation' practices are of a high standard and 'erosion is now less on arable land than on grazing land '.2 Some would claim that this represents the success of agricultural extension activities, whilst others might argue that when the constraints are removed, this

1 Sources: Peter Ivy, 'Agricultural Zoning in Zimbabwe and Observations which Form the Basis for the Zoning', Harare, n.d.; J. de Jong, Extension Techniques in Farm Management (Harare, i 8Q); and Agritex, 'Wedza Baseline Study', Harare, I983.

2 'Productivity of Communal Farms Delights Agritex', in Financial Gazette, i8 May I984.




HARARE

\ ~~~~~~~~~ZIMBABWE

HURUNGWE

( ) ~~~~SIPOLILO

MASHONALAND X FTNRYDRI

Percentage of net arableMASHONALAND

e 30-39 KADOMM

W No large-scale I |commercial farms 0 50 100 kilometres

MAP 4

Zimbabwe: Percentage of Net Arabic Land Cropped on Large-Scale Commercial Farms in Mashonaland1

proves once again that family farms can respond efficiently. Regardless of the reason(s), it is clear that peasants in Zimbabwe can achieve high yields, and that the standard comparison between their yields and those of the large-scale commercial farms with no consideration of the environmental and infra structural constraints, is grossly inadequate but conspicuously common

The potential productivity of the peasants in Zimbabwe can also be seen from the I981 2 maize yields for four model A resettlement

I Source: derived from Table 3.




TABLE 7

I98I -2 Maize Yields in Model A Resettlement Schemes'

Model A Maize Yield Natural Percentage of Schemes kg/hectare Regions Normal Rainfall

Umfurudzi 4,o67 IIB, III 8o-ioo Sengezi 1,333 IIB, III 6o Nyagundi 1,792 III 6o Mpudzi I,475 IV 6o

schemes, as shown in Table 7, where the effects of drought are obvious. The only scheme to receive close to normal rainfall, Umfurudzi, was the only one to have high yields. In fact, when compared with the performance of the large-scale farmers in that area for the same year, this scheme averaged 73 per cent of their maize output.

A senior planner of the model A resettlement programme recently expressed astonishment at the high maize yield of a number of schemes that he had visited in the natural region II B area of Mashonaland East. Commenting that 'yields were similar to those on local large farms', and that 'the area would produce twice as much maize than previously' as a result of increased cropping intensity, the ability of the peasantry to produce was clearly a surprise to this veteran within the Ministry of Agriculture.2

There is also increasing evidence that the peasants can successfully grow a wide range of crops.- For example, in the i98i-2 crop year, Umfurudzi had average cotton yields of I,738 kg/hectare, as compared to 1,500 kg/hectare for local large farms.3 Also inJune I 984, 12 farmers from the model A scheme at Nyamazura were the first resettled Africans to sell flue-cured tobacco on the Harare auction floors. Indeed, certain officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, who had initially refused to support the project because they did not believe that small-holders could successfully grow tobacoo, must have been embarrassed by the Nyamazura yields of 2,000 kg/hectare of good quality tobacco.4

Seen as unproductive and damaging to the environment, peasant

I Source: R. Wright, 'Report on the Results of a Pilot Study for Monitoring and Evaluating the Farm Performance of Resettlement Small Scale Farm Units, I o8 I - IQ82 Season', Harare, X q82.

2 Private communication with Senior Planner of the Ministry of Agriculture's Agritex branch, May i984.

3 Wright, op. cit. 4 The Herald (Harare), 29June i984, p. 3.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN ZIMBABWE 28i

farming in Zimbabwe is often viewed as being incapable of providing a sustainable productive farming base for the country. But despite the infancy of the resettlement programme and three years of drought, there is already some evidence that planners have grossly under-estimated the potential productivity of the peasants in Zimbabwe. For example, the farm plan for Umfurudzi assumed a maize-yield level of I ,500 kg/hectare,' which proved to be only 37 per cent of that achieved in the second year of the scheme.

Utilising the pessimistic assumptions of these plans, Bill Kinsey has projected the impact of resettling I62,000 families on half of the L-SCF area (30 per cent in natural region II) by the year 2000.2 His figures indicate that the proportion of lost output replaced by settler production would be 92 per cent for maize, 93 per cent for cattle, over I00 per cent for small grains, over 6oo per cent for groundnuts, but only one quarter for cotton, a major industrial crop. Kinsey's analysis suggests that 48,500 families will provide I 79,600 tonnes of marketed maize in natural regions 11A and IB when the programme is fully developed, namely 3,700 kg per family. Assuming that each also retains 8oo kg for subsistence purposes, the total production per family can be expected to be as high as 4,600 kg per year. Given current yield levels in the communal areas for that natural region, this would require less than I-25 hectares of maize. Of the five hectares allocated to a family in natural region II, in most cases, at least two were planned to be under maize.3 This would indicate that officials have considerably under- estimated maize yields and total production. Kinsey also concludes that:

Further shortfalls might be identified if the analysis could be extended to include tobacco, wheat, oilseeds, dairying and other horticultural and specialist crops. On the other hand, basing the analysis on the planner's model, not on reality, discounts the pattern of dynamic and diversified agriculture that is evolving in some resettled areas.4

This qualification, we believe, is important because it accurately portrays the reality in many communal as well as model A resettlement areas. Although production data from model B farms are still patchy, there are clearly some success stories. For example, in the i983-4 crop year, the Gowe scheme west of Kadoma achieved maize and cotton

I Department of Conservation and Extension, 'Final Project for the Umfurudzi Intensive Resettlement Area', Harare, I98I.

2 Kinsey, loc. cit. 3 This is the assumption used in model A farm plans. 4 Kinsey, loc. cit. p. i89.



282 WEINER, MOYO, MUNSLOW AND O KEEFE

yields of over 5,ooo and 2,000 kg/hectare, respectively,' and then planned for an additional 8o hectares of irrigated wheat during the I 984-5 season, as well as one hectare of bananas and one of sugar cane, and an orchard of i,500 fruit trees.2

Swayed by the ideology of groups committed to the maintenance of the large-scale commercial farms and by a flood of reports provided by the international community, the myth of unproductive peasants has permeated policy-makers on all sides of the debate on the agrarian question. Evidence from Zimbabwe would suggest that given the right conditions, peasant farmers are perfectly capable of responding well and producing higher yields which reach the market. Nowhere has this been demonstrated more clearly than in early September I984, when the Grain Marketing Board announced that maize deliveries had been twice as much as originally anticipated.3 According to Senator Denis Norman, the Minister of Agriculture, 'communal and resettlement farmers, but mainly communal, were providing 35 per cent of the maize deliveries'.' This is remarkable when it is realized that in i980 only I4 per cent of marketed maize came from communal and resettlement areas. This increased to 23 per cent in I982, and to 25 per cent during the worst drought years in i983.

Any further doubts should be dispelled by the astonishing estimates for the I 985 harvest. A record maize crop of 3 million tonnes is expected, with 2 million tonnes being produced by the peasants, of which a half would be sold.5 This means that they have more than doubled their record I 984 output and are now supplying half of the marketed maize. In short, the Zimbabwean peasants can be productive, provided that they, like large-scale farmers, have access to inputs and markets.

EFFICIENCY IN RESOURCE USE

In addition to land availability, intensity of land use, and agricultural productivity, a further consideration is the efficiency of resource use. In discussing a comparison of this factor between agricultural sectors, clearly much depends upon the criteria chosen and how the costs are counted. Table 8, derived from figures produced by the Central Statistical Office in Zimbabwe, enables a fascinating comparison to be made between the communal areas and the large-scale commercial

1 Figures obtained through discussion with officials of the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Rural Development, Harare, July s 984.

2 Sunday Mail, 8 April I984, p. 4. 3 The Herald, 6 September I984. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 20 March i985.




TABLE 8

Input/Output Accounts and Efficiency Ratios for Commercial and Communal Farming Areas'

Commercial Areas Communal Areas

Total Total Value- Ratio of Total Total Value- Ratio of Outputs Inputs Added Outputs to Outputs Inputs Added Outputs to

Year (Z$) (Z$) (Z$) Inputs (Z$) (Z$) (Z$) Inputs

I974 369 145 224 2'54 I08 7 ioi 15'43 1975 385 i65 230 2'33 io6 8 98 I325 I976 415 I78 237 2'33 107 8 99 13'37 I977 404 I97 207 2'05 I08 9 99 12'00

1978 430 210 220 2'05 75 8 67 9 37 1979 452 23I 22I 196 I04 8 96 I300 I980 607 298 309 2-04 I47 II 136 13.36 198I 817 428 389 I-9I 266 I9 247 14-00 I982 87I 475 396 I.83 272 3I 242 8-80

farms. The ratio of inputs and outputs to value-added- in the two sub-sectors indicates that the former have higher ratios of productivity than the latter in relation to value-added for all farm inputs. As most of the inputs in the communal areas are in the form of labour, the data suggest a more thorough utilisation than in the L-SCF sub-sector. Of course, the relatively higher efficiency in benefit-cost terms of the communal areas is bought at a price - notably in the high level of self-exploitation of peasant labour and in particular gender exploitation, as it is women who are predominantly the producers.2

The model A schemes, whilst being relatively efficient in terms of labour and capital utilisation, exhibit the same inefficiency of land use as the L-SCF sub-sector. Given the continuing problem of landlessness, there is much to be said for exploring models of co-operative production that are based on family-farm systems. However, efforts to stimulate this form of production have been hampered not only by lack of both capital and managerial capability, but also by inefficient land use, because model B initiatives have largely been planned simply as substitutes for large-scale commercial farming as a result of the mistaken assumption that the latter can be superimposed on the former. We do not wish to

1 Source: Central Statistical Office, Production Accounts of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, 1974-1982 (Harare, 1984).

2 Bie Nio Ong, 'Women and the Transition to Socialism in Sub-Saharan Africa', in Barry Munslow (ed.), Africa's Problems in the Transition to Socialism (London, I986).

IO MOA 23




suggest that there are no problems with family-farm systems, especially in the communal areas, because quite the reverse is true. Environmental degradation associated with over-cultivation on marginal land is a serious problem, but this can only begin to be alleviated when peasant producers can gain access to better land.

Reluctance on the part of many peasants to accept anything other than the familial model of production has been stressed by many authors.' However, experience from other countries suggests that a variety of creative and indigenously applicable blends of familial peasant and co-operative production systems can be most fruitful.2 It is thus possible to harness household rewards as incentives with the economics and benefits of co-operative effort. In particular, tractor support for model A schemes in natural region II would alleviate the wastage of such large areas of arable land for purposes of pasture.

CONCLUSION

Let us reiterate our main arguments. First, there is much unused land in the L-SCF sub-sector in natural region II which can be used for resettlement. Secondly, although there is evidence that the peasants can farm land intensively - in some cases, too intensively - current land-use planning for Mashonaland is reproducing extensive models of agricultural development. Thirdly, strong evidence is emerging that yields from the settlement schemes could become comparable to those achieved on large-scale commercial farms. Finally, output from traditional agriculture is higher per unit of input.

Our findings are not surprising, given the hindsight afforded from other African agricultural development experiences, but they seriously challenge the myth of efficient large-scale farming in Zimbabwe. The results also indicate that there are better possible patterns of land use, more intensive levels of production, and higher yields for lower inputs available with different models of agriculture from that of large-scale commercial farming. This is not to suggest that there is no role for the L-SCF sub-sector, but the proponents should not carry with them the colonial-settler model of poor African husbandry - equity with growth is possible.

Much of the agrarian debate has been conducted more at the level of ideology than from a reasoned assessment of the available data.

1 Terence 0. Ranger, Peasant Consciousness and Guerrilla War in Zimbabwe: a comparative study (London, I985).

2 See, for example, the special issue on 'Agriculture in Socialist Development', World Development, I3, I, i985.




Although the information that we have tried to assemble may not be sufficient to utilise for planning purposes, it has been useful in helping to uncover the material base for the various conflicting claims that have been made, and we have also attempted to indicate in which direction the evidence seems to be guiding policy-makers.

Currently there exists a contradiction between the full utilisation of good potential arable land and the actual situation in Zimbabwe. The large-scale commercial farms are not really as efficient as many of their defenders claim. A fuller utilisation of potential arable land by this sub-sector will require a greater capital intensity of production, which appears anyway to be the trend. This seriously challenges the thesis, often expressed in Zimbabwe, that a major resettlement effort would lead to a net loss in employment. The early evidence from both model A and B resettlement schemes shows that these are currently unlikely to be significantly more effective in attaining a fuller utilisation of the potentially good arable land, whilst clearly making important strides in the provision of greater equity and the attainment of longer-term transformatory objectives. The farming units for the co-operative production model of resettlement are too large for full utilisation without greater mechanical and managerial back-up. These are the current constraints on the existing large-scale commercial farmers, and they will be no less so for the co-operative model of resettlement.

There appears also to be a contradiction between a resettlement policy predicated upon establishing peasants with a viable on-farm income base - no longer dependent on migrant remittances from predominantly male family-household members - and the current resettlement pattern, which is primarily located in semi-arid areas and therefore incapable of consistently providing the necessary resource base. Yet the record is very clear that peasants can and will respond by producing greater marketed surpluses when conditions are right. There is also evidence that they can produce comparable yields to those of the large-scale commercial farms with significantly less inputs in the high potential areas. The challenge now is for the land-use planners and the politicians to harness this potential in a more useful way, which can attain both the goals of equity and of growth. The good arable land is not currently being used to optimum effect, but neither are the existing plans capable of remedying this. Innovation and new land-use planning models are required. The desperate plight of the currently impoverished but would-be successful producers on the communal areas demands that attention be paid to this issue.

10-2



land use and agricultural productivity in zimbabwe

Documents