Land reform in Zimbabwe: a cure for poverty?

Unjust land distribution is a legacy of colonial policies that took resources away from indigenous groups. At independence, many states had a minority of white settlers owning large commercial farms while the indigenous majority were left with small plots of land. Land redistribution has been a policy of many governments.

An article from the University of Manchester inthe UK compares the livelihoods of two groups settling in Hurungwe District,Zimbabwe. One group of households was part of a planned government resettlement,while the others settled spontaneously. In Zimbabwe, between 1980 and 2000,91,000 families were resettled with assistance by the state, but many morefamilies took land for themselves in frontier districts.

The government selected poor households with fewassets or savings. Families were placed in planned schemes to create new‘farmers’. On arrival they signed three permits which allowed them residence,cultivation and grazing. The state underwrote known risks for three years. However,once the state withdrew, the households had poorly developed support networks.

Families in informal settlements were less poorhouseholds and had the means to resettle without state support. Land wascleared to stake claims and settlers invested in moveable assets such ascattle. Households delayed building homes in case of eviction.

Findings for government settlements:

• State settlements provided more andbetter quality land.
• Settlers were encouraged to specialise incrop production, which worked well in good years, but made them vulnerable todrought and changes in input and crop prices.
• Because there are no employmentopportunities outside agriculture, land holdings are being divided to supportgrown-up children and their families.
• The intensive state support of the 1980sand 1990s has not given official settlers secure, sustainable livelihoods.

Findings for informal settlements:

• Households developed coping strategies byforming strong networks with other families for mutual support and aid.However, families were still vulnerable to risks such as drought and HIV and AIDS.
• Settlers were not restricted toagriculture and the diversification of livelihoods gave them more opportunitiesto manage risk.
• Non-governmental organisations help byinstigating participatory models of resettlement.

In the short term, land resettlement can bringrelief to households in crisis and raise the assets and incomes of poorfamilies. In the long term, however, land alone is not enough. Landredistribution and dryland farming is not a complete solution for rural poverty.It may bring persistent poverty without effective support policies andinstitutions.

Policy implications include:

• Relaxed rules on sub-division and increasedtaxes on land above a certain size could encourage landowners to make more landavailable on the market.
• State involvement can be beneficial,especially if it identifies very poor and landless families and helps them gainto access land.
• Official policies should be flexible andaccept that informal resettlement will always occur.
• Funds should be established to helpnon-poor vulnerable families wishing to buy land.
• Diverse livelihood strategies are animportant part of risk management. Non-farm occupations should be included atthe planning stage.