What does ‘success’ look like in Zimbabwe’s communal areas, and how does this compare with land reform areas?

We established comparator sites in communal areas a while back and an earlier blog series compared and contrasted A1 and communal area sites, looking at a range of criteria. These sites are the nearest communal area to our A1 sites, and often the location from where land invaders came in the early 2000s. We returned recently to these areas to carry out success ranking workshops across nine villages in all our sites in communal areas.

The comparator sites are villages in Chiweshe in Mazowe, Serima in Gutu, Gutu South near Wondedzo in Masvingo and Khumalo East in Matobo. With our local research teams assisting with organising the workshops, we held one success ranking exercise in each village with 14 – 73 participants, both men and women, as well as young and old people. What did we find?

One key feature that makes the communal areas different is their dependence on aid handouts from the state and NGOs. These have been central to livelihoods in communal areas for decades. The state is very present in the communal areas as are NGO projects of various sorts, as access to the communal areas is not restricted by interpretations of ‘sanctions’. This aid-dependence presented a challenge to the workshop events. With most of these handouts targeting the ‘poorest and most vulnerable’ in principle, an effort was made to explain clearly that the workshops were not a vetting procedure for subsequent delivery of aid.

As in the A1 sites, discussions were lively and full of laughter and good humour. Many reflected on how interesting and useful the workshops were. Discussions started with two simple questions. Firstly, what does ‘success’ mean in the communal areas? And secondly, what are the indicators of success (or lack of)? After the rankings, we asked participants to discuss the characteristics of each category. We also asked them to reflect on their rankings.

What follows are some preliminary highlights of the results across the sites. This a long blogpost (apologies), but we thought it was worth sharing in detail to make it comparable to our A1 blog series, but if short on time you may prefer to jump to the last two sections for the conclusions.

Chiweshe communal area

In Chiweshe communal area, two success ranking exercises were conducted in two villages: Maravanyika and Maponga villages. In ChiShona, the word ‘success’ was understood as ‘budiriro’. Numerous indicators were mentioned:

• Adequate farming equipment (ploughs, cultivators, harrows etc.)
• Having ‘projects’ (often broilers and layers, garden).
• Good houses/home. One male participant commented: “A person who is successful is seen by having (town-like) ‘suburb’ houses, i.e., beautiful houses”.
• Having access to adequate and healthy food (including meat) (kudya uchiguta). Participants emphasised the importance “kudya uchiguta”, and “kusunza” (buying/ working for grain) was frowned upon.
• Livestock ownership (kupfuya). Cattle are especially important as source of agricultural inputs.
• Educating children.
• Helping others, as explained by one female participant: “When a person is successful, he/she needs to help others in the community. He/she should pay school fees for the children who are struggling to pay school fees so that they can become successful”
• Diverse sources of income. “A successful person has several sources of income. Besides farming, he/she might have a grinding mill, taxi-business (mushikashika), etc. which provides him/her with extra cash”.
• Having a family.
• Water and sanitation – boreholes, toilet, jojo tanks/
• Affording a private doctor.
• A house in town.

As with our A1 land reform rankings, three categories were used during the ranking exercises (SG1 being the most successful, and SG3 the least successful). Most households are stuck in SG2 and SG3 categories, while very few are in the SG1 category.

• SG1 category consisted of wealthy households, often described as good farmers. Indicators of success included ownership of cars, trucks, motorbikes, livestock (especially cattle), grinding mills, good homes, boreholes and irrigation, and access to off-farm businesses and/or jobs, grinding mills. These households were described as “having everything”. Only 5 households out of 157 households (3%) ranked across the two villages were ranked in this category.
• SG2 category consisted of households with some assets, including good homes, cattle, etc. Around 21% of the households across the two villages were ranked in this group. Some were conducting tobacco farming under contract.
• SG3 category consisted of households with household heads who were either young who had recently established their own homes, old and infirm, disabled, widowed, orphaned, divorced/separated etc. Others had left the village altogether, and there was no one living on their homesteads. These households were often described as those households that “could barely have access to adequate and healthy food” (havadyi vachiguta). 76% were ranked in this category. Due to old age and lack of labour (with children now away), many old people in this group have abandoned outfield cultivation and now concentrate on home gardens.

Serima communal area

Again, success rankings were conducted in three villages (Chiro, Mudzimu and Matoto) situated in Serima communal area. As in other areas, discussions began with the meaning of the term ‘success’. In explaining the term success, one female participant summed up success as “having everything, and not having to borrow anything from others. This includes owning farming assets such as cattle, scotch-carts, etc., grinding mill, garden, and so on.” Another female participant said: “A successful person have good, spacious and adequate houses that can accommodate a lot of visitors, owns cattle, security fence, and fruit trees.” Yet another male participant explained: “When we say a person is now successful, we look at what he/she owns. Does he/she own cattle, a plough, scotch-cart, cultivator and so on? Does he/she farm and produce enough to eat? Does he/she have chickens, goats and sheep? When one has all these things, we say that person is successful?”

In sum, several indicators of success were identified. At household level, the following indicators of success were mentioned:

• Livestock ownership, especially cattle.
• Producing enough food to eat.
• Having adequate food (kudya uchiguta).
• Good home – modern and adequate houses.
• Boreholes/jojo tanks.
• Security fence.
• Fruit trees and orchards.
• Farming equipment, e.g., scotch-cart.
• Solar system.
• Projects.

At community level, the following indicators of success were mentioned:

• Good roads.
• Clinics (nearby).
• Schools.
• Community ‘projects’ for young people (such as irrigation schemes/gardens, sewing projects, broilers etc.).
• ‘Clubs’.
• Zesa electricity.
• Boreholes.

Three categories were used for the rankings:

• SG1 category consisted of those households described as ‘mbingas’ with ‘everything’, including cars, cattle, good homes, boreholes, jojo tanks and so on. They can afford to buy inputs such as fertilisers, and are therefore able to “plant in time” rather than waiting for inputs from the government. Some have children in the diaspora, including in South Africa, the UK, Netherlands, United States and Australia. For those in Europe/the US, these children were highly educated, thanks to nearby Serima mission schools. This group constituted around 5% of the total households (n=244).
• SG2 category consisted of households with some assets (but not all). They were doing ‘fairly OK’. They had good homes, some cattle, deep wells, and farming equipment. However, most of them were now old and sick. Hence, no longer farming at the level they used to in the past. They were some widows here too – who inherited assets and good homes from their husbands. This group constituted 18% of the total households.
• SG3 category consisted of young people who had just established their homes, the old and infirm, widows, disabled and absentees. Some had passed on and no one had taken over the homestead. Others were looking after disabled relatives. Those with school going children were even struggling to pay school fees, and “their children were going to school on an empty stomach”. This group constituted 77% of the total households.

Participants stressed the importance of community cooperation (kubatana kwevanhu munharaunda) and working hard (kushanda nesimba) as essential to success. Asked to give some reflections on their rankings, participants noted that most households were ranked in SG3 category. We asked why this was the case. This generated a heated debate. Some participants argued that the younger people in SG3 were “lazy” and “did not want to work”. However, others stressed that the younger people in this group were ‘trying to work hard’ but they were facing many challenges. They stressed that they lacked the necessary resources to farm. They also highlighted lack of market for their produce.

Gutu South communal area

In Gutu South communal area (close to our Masvingo district A1 sites), we conducted three success rankings in each village. The villages were Muvirimi, Mazenge and Ziyambe. At household level, many indicators were identified as a sign of success. As one female participant commented: “A successful person is seen by having a very good home, good health, producing enough food to eat, owning all the assets needed for farming without having to borrow from others.” Yet another commented: “A successful person owns lots of cattle and goats, good home, has a borehole/deep well, jojo tank, harvests a lot of maize, has off-farm businesses and so on.” Another participant commented that “a successful person is seen by wearing nice clothes and looking smart all the time (kushambidzika).” Another male participant said about success: “When we say someone is successful, he/she will be owning cattle (ane danga) and other livestock such as goats, chickens, etc., deep well/borehole, big crop field and all the farming equipment such as scotch-cart, plough, cultivator, etc.”  A female participant emphasized that besides the material belongings, a successful person must also have a “stable family”, as this will be crucial for succession and continuity. In her words, a successful person must also be “a family man or woman”.

At community level, one male participant commented: “Indicators of success at community level (nharaunda) include having lots of schools for the young generation to get education and clinics for people to access medical attention. Having access to electricity and good roads are also indicators of success.” Community boreholes, community gardens and ‘projects’ were also seen as an indicator of success, with access to clean and safe water seen as vital. Cooperation (kubatana), guarding against gender violence and having a proactive sabhuku with good leadership skills was also seen as crucial to ensure success at community level.

In sum, the following key indicators of success (in combination) were identified:

• Land area.
• Livestock, especially cattle. Cattle are far fewer these days due to the deaths because of January disease. The ability to re-start the herd was emphasised.
• Health (utano).
• Borehole/deep wells, irrigation equipment.
• Farming equipment, e.g., plough, scotch-cart, etc.
• Access to off-farm job and/or businesses.
• A house in town.

When commenting about success (or lack) of it, participants argued that “success was born out of knowledge and hard work.” Careful planning, determination (shungu), copying others who are doing well and competition were all important factors determining success or lack of it.  However, participants noted that there were some challenges. Knowledge and determination alone is not enough. One male participant commented: “There are a lot of obstacles that makes people not to become successful. You might be having knowledge and willingness to work hard, but without resources you won’t be successful.”

• SG1 category consists of those households which were described as “having everything”. They have cars, solar systems and electricity, cattle, security fence, farming equipment, off-farm businesses and so on. They have children who provide remittances from diaspora (often in the UK and Australia). They employ hired workers. Some send their children to expensive schools. In total, households in this group made up 7% of the total households across the three villages.
• SG2 category consists of those households “who are doing OK”. They have small herds of cattle, produce adequate food for home consumption. Some here are widows whose late husbands left a few assets, including a good home. This category makes up 31% of the total households. Some here were described as local “donors” who were assisting the poor in the SG3 – for example lending them draft power. Participants stressed that some household heads in this group were now old, and production was declining.
• SG3 category consists of those households which are “struggling to feed their families”. They often lack adequate food to eat. They also struggle to send their children to school. Most household heads in this group are young people who have just established their homes, old and infirm, as well as widows and orphans. It also included absentees, often with no one living there. This young generation was struggling because “it was born after industries had closed down.” The young households provide casual labour to others in SG1 and SG2. Participants also argued that the young people which were found in this group were lazy to farm and work hard. “Border jumpers” to South Africa were also found in this group, with many said to be languishing in poverty in South Africa (kukanga waya). Commenting on the youth, one female participant said: “these people do not want to work”. This was far the biggest group, with 62% of the households.

When asked what we could learn from the distribution of households in the three rankings, the discussion was revealing. One male participant said about the rankings: “If you look at these rankings, it is clear that most people are in SG2 and SG3 categories, and very few are in SG1 category. This does not paint a very good picture. We are in trouble as a community. What can be done in order to have more households in the SG1 category?” We asked why most households were in the lower ranks. This sparked a lively debate, and several reasons were suggested. One female participant argued: “There are a lot of energetic and young people in SG3, but these people do not want to work.” Another male participant countered this perspective and instead highlighted that the young generation in the SG3 were stuck in there because “they have heavy outlays in school fees.” With no access to off-farm employment in an era where “industries have closed down”, it was argued that it was difficult for young people to become successful. Participants also stressed drug abuse as a major problem among the young people.

Kumalo East communal area

In Kumalo East communal area, one success ranking exercise was held in Shumbeshabe village. We asked the participants what they understood but the term ‘success’. In isiNdebele, the term success meant ‘impumelelo’. One male participant explained the meaning of success as follows: “A successful person is someone who has worked very hard and bought cattle, learned to farm and respect others.” Another male participant explained: “When we say someone is now successful, we look at the way he/she farms, keep his/her cattle and the way his/her homestead is built.” A female participant also explained: “A successful person is one who owns cattle, produce enough for own consumption and sell surplus to others and to GMB.” Another male participant said: “A successful person has cars and a big stomach (if he is a man)”.

At household level, several indicators of success were identified:

• Livestock ownership (a lot of emphasis on cattle).
• Producing adequate food for own consumption and surplus to sell
• Cars.
• Farming equipment, including donkeys, ploughs and so on.
• Modern houses.
• Solar system.
• Educating children.
• Access to off-farm business and/or work.

At community level, the following indicators were mentioned:

• Schools
• Clinics
• Roads

Three categories were again used:

• SG1 category consisted of those households with “everything”. These were described as “izikhokho”, a term equivalent to “mbinga” in Shona. No household was ranked in this group.
• SG2 category consisted of those households owning some cattle, cars, producing enough to eat, and have access to off-farm income. This group constituted 27% of the total households (N=232)
• SG3 category constituted 73% of the total households. It consisted of the young people who had recently established their homes, old and infirm, absentees, as well as those who had passed on with no one occupying their homes now.

After all the households in the village were ranked, we asked the participants to give us their reflections of their rankings. Participants mentioned a range of factors why many households were in the lower ranks.

Participants stressed that there were many obstacles that were preventing them from becoming successful. One of the oft-repeated challenges was lack of grazing. As one male participant explained: “How can we become successful here when we do not have access to grazing land? We are congested here. We are crowded! This village has about 230 households on a very small piece of land. The places that were once grazing areas are now full of people. We were given three-tier farms for grazing, but they are now occupied by individual people.” They complained that their three-tier farms were “taken away” by the Rural District Council and reallocated to individuals as ‘self-contained’ plots. As one participant explained, “we were given 7 farms for grazing but they were all subdivided and allocated to individuals.”

Participants also complained of poor soil fertility. The young people said that their land which was often a subdivision within a parent’s field was too small. However, some older participants countered that by arguing that this younger generation was “lazy” and could not make use of the so-called “small areas” they have. Most of this land was lying idle. As one male explained, “these young people complain that they do not have enough land to farm, but what are they doing with the small land they have? Nothing! They are just too lazy to farm. You can produce a lot on a small area if you work for the soil. In the past, we used to feed our soils with leaf litter and termite mounds. But no one does those things these days.” A female participant also noted: “This younger generation does not want to copy what the old generation used to do. In the past, children were trained how to farm from a young age. In the old days, you would go as far as copying from those who were doing well and even aspire to surpass whatever that person will be doing. There was a spirit of competition in a good way.”

Drug abuse among the young people was mentioned as a major challenge to success. Participants also complained about cattle rustling. One participant described his experience of cattle rustling: “Since the 1990s, I have lost 73 cattle due to theft, and no one has never been convicted. I always reported but no one was ever arrested. There is a lot of corruption in the police.” Lack of employment opportunities for young people was also mentioned. Most were “border jumpers” in South Africa. They were not remitting anything. They were occupying precarious jobs, some were being “eaten” (ukudliwa) in South Africa.

What is ‘success’ in the communal areas?

Local perceptions of success across our communal area sites are fairly similar. The criteria are comparable, and the distribution of people shows, across sites, that most are allocated to SG2 and SG3, especially the latter. The persistence of poverty in the communal areas is apparent, despite the array of ‘aid’ projects offered over the years. The ability to accumulate is seriously constrained due to lack of land to cultivate and graze. Both elderly and young people are especially constrained for different reasons. In Matobo, earlier arrangements for extending grazing have been removed and allocated to larger farms for individual allocations, further limiting opportunities.

The communal areas are the original ‘native reserves’ carved out as a result of the Land Apportionment Act during the colonial era. These were never meant to be places of ‘success’ and accumulation, but labour reserves where men (mostly) would be forced to participate in white-controlled businesses, whether on the farms or in the mines or later in the growing industries in urban centres. This dynamic remains the case, but the opportunities for off-farm work have declined as the core economy has collapsed and the farming sector has been reconfigured through land reform.

Work on farms still exists, both in A1 and A2 areas, but this is not seen as remunerative or desirable. Mining has expanded and some will get jobs, but many engage in temporary artisanal small-scale mining. Migration to towns continues, as well as to South Africa and beyond, but prospects are limited in Zimbabwe due to economic collapse and the closing of industries and abroad getting gainful employment requires good connections and qualifications, which is not available to all. The old pattern of circular migration where a male communal area dweller would move for a period to work elsewhere sending money back to a family and maybe buying a few cattle during the period before retiring has broken down. A more opportunistic livelihood is evident with occasional moves to mines, farms and jobs in town occurring, but most are stuck in communal areas barely making a living.

Contrasting communal and land reform areas: does land redistribution make a difference?

This is why there are some major contrasts with A1 areas where having more land means there are more opportunities for local accumulation, both for men and women as independent farmers, traders and entrepreneurs. As we saw in the previous blog series, migration and off-farm income earning remain important, but the ability to generate farm surpluses and invest means many more are able to accumulate and move up the success ranks over time. Across our A1 sites there are many in the SG1 category with a set of investments in farms and homes that are very rarely seen in the communal areas, including a variety of farm equipment (including tractors, irrigation etc.), as well as improvements in homes (including solar systems etc.).

As we saw, however, this is not universal and movement is in both directions with many becoming stuck, particularly in SG2, but there are clearly more opportunities. Land reform therefore released a key constraint in the communal areas – access to land. The expected ‘decongestion’ effects in the communal areas are, however, not seen. The communal areas remain crowded and poor, with few opportunities. ‘Development’ in the form of aid projects seems to make little difference, beyond alleviating extreme suffering at the margins. It appears that only redistribution of land assets can offer some route to greater opportunities. As we have seen, this is not a panacea either as, just as in the communal areas, in A1 land reform areas 25 years after land reform challenges of generational transition are seen alongside and the effects of subdivided farms, which puts a squeeze on accumulation possibilities.

Our explorations of ‘success’ across A1 and now communal areas have been extraordinarily revealing, offering insights into both criteria, distributions of people and transitions over time (the transitions data for communal areas are still being analysed). The data tell us a lot about how land access affects patterns of accumulation and how land-based activity is linked to others in diverse livelihood strategies. These are both more varied and more successful in the A1 land reform areas, suggesting that, with many important qualifications, land reform has offered opportunities for success for many, if certainly not all, people, despite the many challenges that still exist.

Our next blog series, coming in a couple of weeks’ time, will focus in more depth on the dynamics of accumulation in land reform areas and what this means for class formation, social differentiation, gender dynamics and more.