Back to Index

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 in the 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 more families took land for themselves in frontier districts.

The government selected poor households with few assets 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 poor households and had the means to resettle without state support. Land was cleared to stake claims and settlers invested in moveable assets such as cattle. Households delayed building homes in case of eviction.

Findings for government settlements:

• State settlements provided more and better quality land.
• Settlers were encouraged to specialise in crop production, which worked well in good years, but made them vulnerable to drought and changes in input and crop prices.
• Because there are no employment opportunities outside agriculture, land holdings are being divided to support grown-up children and their families.
• The intensive state support of the 1980s and 1990s has not given official settlers secure, sustainable livelihoods.
• Findings for informal settlements:
• Households developed coping strategies by forming 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 to agriculture and the diversification of livelihoods gave them more opportunities to manage risk.
• Non-governmental organisations help by instigating participatory models of resettlement.

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

Policy implications include:

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

Source(s): ‘Livelihood Dynamics in Planned and Spontaneous Resettlement in Zimbabwe: Converging and Vulnerable’, World Development 34(4), 728-750, by Admos Chimhowu and David Hulme, 2006 Full document.
http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/bwpi/about/findings/thefile,64600,en.pdf

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP