The Impact of Resettlementon Food Security & Livelihoods

Three decades of research on agrarian change in Zimbabwe

B H Kinsey

BWPI/CASSToward Poverty Focused Reconstruction and Development

25-26 August 2009

Background I

• Longest study of households ever undertaken in Africa—28+ years

• Most recent round of fieldwork in July 2009

• 400 households resettled in the early 1980s (in three NRs – 2, 3 & 4) – Model A

• 150 communal area households from the communities of origin of those resettled

Background II

• Multi-disciplinary: economics, rural sociology, anthropology, clinical nutrition, geography, agriculture, political science, law, finance, remote sensing & GIS

• Multi-dimensional: agricultural & economic performance, growth of social capital, succession & inheritance, impact of drought, effects of risk & uncertainty, ethnography, resource conservation, sustainability, local leadership, health & productivity, etc.

Background III

• Output: Numerous Masters & PhD theses (from 8 different universities) and some 106 publications in leading journals since 2000 (45 prior to 2000)

• Impact: Minimal. Operational and technical staff have been highly engaged and responsive. Policymakers have been completely indifferent to the results of research, no matter how germane to their areas of responsibility

Background IV

Original approach – 4 models

• A – Family-based (now A1). Continuously evaluated with mixed results.

• B – Collective cooperatives. Evaluated very negatively & abandoned.

• C – Peri-estate agriculture. One very positive evaluation but no further development.

• D – Livestock-based resettlement. Never properly evaluated.

The trajectory of welfare following resettlement

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7L

evel

of

wel

fare

mea

sure

Time -----►

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Position prior to resettlement

Target level of benefits

?

?

?

Benefitsper household per capita

.

What has happened?

Stage 1: Congruent with global experience, new settlers were severely challenged by translocation. All suffered drops in welfare levels. Extensive state support (100% extension coverage, crop packs, free tillage, credit, etc) helped minimize stress. Also important was social capital in the form of community involvement, self-help, mutual assistance, and the like. The ‘honeymoon harvest’ of 1981 helped households build reserves for the 3-year drought that followed. But with crop failures, indebtedness – and stress – increased.

Stage 2: Mid-1980s to early 90s. Growth in farming expertise + generally favourable seasons => positive returns for those with a serious interest in agriculture. Growing investments in the farming business, as well as the beginnings of a diverse range of non-farm enterprises. Strong interest in and engagement with group-based economic activities. Strengthening of food security at household level and widening of the activity mix within livelihood portfolios.Disenchantment on the part of the state that resettlement areas were not replicating commercial farming. Changes of emphasis with expiry of Lancaster House provisions. Weakening support from the state.

Stage 3: ESAP followed by successive droughts. Farmers broaden the range of market outlets utilized but at the same time begin a dramatic decline in the use of purchased inputs, especially fertilizer. Yields & returns drop. Growing impact of HIV/AIDS.The average household grows in size as sons marry & start families while still living on their fathers’ holding –because of the increasing difficulty in finding nonfarmjobs & government’s weakening commitment to land reform to benefit smallholders. Per-capita incomes drop.Post-2000 chaos – Migration away from rural areas, combined with changes in family structure, leads to near collapse of small-scale commercial farming in the original resettlement areas. Complete disappearance of social capital. Less than subsistence agriculture in many areas. A ‘grandmother economy’.

Moving forward

?