Latest news with #Masvingo
Zawya
30-06-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Advancing agrifood systems transformation through effective digital technologies in Zimbabwe
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is advancing agrifood systems through integration of effective digital technologies in Zimbabwe. Through the Fostering Digital Villages Initiative (FDiVi), FAO hosted a Digital Fair in the Masvingo province. The digital fair brought together digital service providers, farmers, agri-entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders, creating a dynamic platform for knowledge exchange and real-time onboarding to digital agriculture solutions. The digital fair is part of the broader Fostering Digital Villages through innovative advisory and profitable market services project, which aims to transform agrifood systems in rural Malawi, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe using effective digital technologies, including artificial intelligence. 'This project facilitates delivery of innovative agricultural extension services for increased productivity, enhanced market access, and advance inclusive rural transformation. It will also support local farmers, extension officers, agro-dealers, and processors, particularly the youth and women,' said Patrice Talla, FAO Subregional Coordinator for Southern Africa and Representative to Zimbabwe. The digital fair held in the Bikita district is part of a series of the ongoing campaign by FAO targeting digital service providers, rural farmers, agri-entrepreneurs and other stakeholders to interact and integrate digital technologies in agriculture. The digital fair sparked renewed enthusiasm for digital transformation in agriculture among local communities. Speaking during the digital fair, Bernard Hadzirambwi, the District Development Coordinator, praised the initiative and encouraged farmers to adopt digital technologies to enhance productivity and resilience. 'Rural innovation thrives when communities connect and interact with digital technology,' said Hadzirambwi. 'During the digital fair, our farmers explored AI-powered advisory tools, mobile market platforms, and digital extension services. I am truly encouraged by how quickly the community is embracing these innovations. Digital technologies are not just tools, they are enablers of climate-smart agriculture and inclusive rural development in our district,' said Nobert Chiduza, District Agricultural Extension Officer in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development. The FDiVi is one of FAO's corporate initiatives and flagship programmes. It is an integrated development vision that enshrines digitalization at the core of rural transformation and prosperity, addressing on-farm and off-farm socio-economic elements. The project is being implemented in the Mhondoro-Ngezi and Bikita districts where digital hubs will be equipped with digital tools and services including free internet, computers and digital literacy training materials. The project supports local farmers, extension officers, agro-dealers, and processors through facilitating access to innovative agricultural extension services, improving market access, and promoting inclusive rural transformation. 'Before the digital fair, I didn't know how much technology could change the way I farm. Now, I've learned about AI tools that help me plan better, and I can connect directly with buyers through my phone. As a young farmer, this gives me confidence in exploring new opportunities posed through digital technologies,' said Sheunesu Njeke, a 26-year-old farmer after the digital fair. Going forward, FAO will integrate Digital Fairs in the annual District and Ward level Agriculture Shows. The project will continue to support digital innovators and entrepreneurs in breaking into the rural market and will also support farmers and other rural stakeholders to safely onboard onto digital platforms and services. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Regional Office for Africa.
Zawya
24-06-2025
- General
- Zawya
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. © Copyright The Zimbabwean. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Zawya
12-06-2025
- Health
- Zawya
Zimbabwe makes strides in reducing antimicrobial use in poultry with FAO support
Zimbabwe is making significant progress in combating antimicrobial resistance (AMR) within its poultry sector, thanks to a collaborative effort between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Government of Zimbabwe. Through a Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) supported project and the Fleming Fund global project, the initiative has successfully reduced the overuse of antimicrobials in the broiler value chain by empowering farmers with sustainable and biosecure poultry production practices. Antimicrobial resistance poses a serious threat to global health, food security, and economic stability. The overuse of antimicrobials in livestock production contributes significantly to this problem, leading to the development of resistant bacteria that can spread to humans, making infections harder to treat. The project, implemented in eight districts – Bubi, Chegutu, Masvingo, Marondera, Murewa, Mutare, Mutasa, and Zvimba – employed the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach to promote improved husbandry practices. This hands-on, participatory method equips farmers with the knowledge and skills to enhance biosecurity, prevent diseases, and ultimately reduce their reliance on antimicrobials. Speaking at a recent project review meeting, Berhanu Bedane, FAO Livestock Development Officer, emphasized the project's impact. "This initiative has demonstrated the value and impact of the One Health approach, where sectors across human and animal health collaborated to address the shared threat of antimicrobial resistance," he stated. He highlighted that FAO's focus was on delivering practical, evidence-based interventions directly to the animal health sector. The FFS model proved instrumental in achieving these goals. By providing farmers with tailored training and communication materials, the project fostered a deeper understanding of disease prevention and the importance of responsible use of antimicrobials. A baseline Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey informed the development of these materials, ensuring they were relevant and effective. "The farmer field schools have been empowering poultry farmers through hands-on training in sustainable and biosecure poultry production," Bedane explained. "This enhances poultry productivity while simultaneously reducing the use of antimicrobials through the reduction of infections, making our health more secure and sustainable." He also noted similar initiatives in the dairy value chain aimed at understanding and reducing antimicrobial use through prudent biosecurity and animal health management systems. The Chief Director of the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), Dr Pious Makaya echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the project's alignment with Zimbabwe's national development priorities, as outlined in the National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1) and the broader Vision 2030. "What we have heard today is in sync with the national development imperatives that we have," he said. He specifically highlighted the project's contribution to key national priorities such as health and well-being, food security, and food safety. "Our health would be enhanced and improved, and also the health of the animals as well, the health of the environment as well would also be improved," he stated, adding that enhanced animal health improves livestock production and promotes food safety. The DVS Chief Director recognized the complexity of tackling AMR, describing it as a "wicked problem" requiring multifaceted solutions. "We cannot have one single solution. It is not a linear problem," he emphasized, underscoring the importance of the multi-sectoral approach adopted by the MPTF and Fleming fund projects. He also stressed the need for continuous review and adaptation of strategies to keep pace with the evolving nature of AMR. Looking ahead, both FAO and the Government of Zimbabwe reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining momentum in the fight against AMR. Berhanu Bedane stated that FAO and its partners in the Quadripartite are fully committed to maintaining momentum. He also pointed towards consolidating the achievements realized and identifying clear pathways for continued collaboration in the implementation of Zimbabwe's AMR National Action Plan 2.0. The country is also being considered for a phase two of the MPTF project. The success of this collaborative initiative demonstrates the power of partnerships and the effectiveness of empowering farmers with knowledge and tools to adopt sustainable practices. These achievements also contribute to broader global goals under the RENOFARM initiative (Reduce the Need for Antimicrobials on Farms), which promotes reduced antimicrobial reliance through strengthened biosecurity, preventive animal health strategies, and improved farming practices. By reducing the reliance on antimicrobials in livestock production, Zimbabwe is taking a crucial step toward safeguarding public health, promoting food security, and protecting the environment for future generations. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Regional Office for Africa.
Zawya
20-05-2025
- General
- Zawya
Negotiating demographic change: sustaining land reform success in Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Here we have two such sites – Clare farm in Gutu district and Wondedzo extension in Masvingo district. In these sites, people were allocated plots (around 30ha) to include homesteads, farmland and grazing in one area (more like a (very) small commercial farm, hence the likelihood that these will be reclassified as A2 areas soon). These were supposed to be independent, productive commercial farms and were regarded as the 'best' option by settlers during the land invasion period. As a result, many influential war veterans and other locally well-connected people who joined the invasions made sure that they got plots on these farms. While these political connections may have only lasted during the period of the invasions (these were not big 'chefs' as seen on some of the A2 farms), they were able to manipulate allocations, some gaining multiple plots under different names of family members. Others also were allocated plots in A2 areas, and kept two farms, again with different names. They came mostly (as with others in the villagised A1 areas) from the communal areas, but a significant number had town business and government connections. They came with relatively more livestock and other assets and got started on farming with great enthusiasm and energy. When we did our early studies in from around 2005, these were the areas where 'accumulation from below' was most evident, and throughout the period from 2000, they regularly produced more than consumption needs and invested the surplus in improving their farms. They were impressive, vibrant places offering much hope for the future of land reform. The demographic composition is slightly different to the other A1 land reform areas too, as this group of original settlers were somewhat older when they arrived. This has implications today, as quite a number (mostly) male settlers have died, handing over land to wives (mostly). Meanwhile, sons (as well as daughters) are now grown up and in need of land, resulting in many subdivided plots. An ageing population, challenges of subdivision and a number of inheritance disputes all add to the other challenges of the recent period. While the pattern of accumulation from below and surplus production continues, the really positive vibe from 20 years ago is more subdued. Indeed, many commented in our success group discussions about the very real challenges being faced, and central among these was navigating a demographic transition between generations. Across the two sites, many of the same indicators discussed in other success ranking workshops were repeated. However, here the emphasis on crops and surpluses was central. People commented on the increases in crop outputs over 25 years: 'When we came here, we were not very good farmers. We used to harvest one or two bags of maize. Now we speak of tonnes.' In relation to this, many highlighted the importance of boreholes and irrigation. A total of nine boreholes were sunk in Clare farm alone in the last year. This is linked to the expansion of irrigated horticulture along rivers and in vleis (wetlands) in both sites, which is increasingly intensive and commercialised, and across a large scale. The presence of a significant (and growing) number of VaPostori Apostolic church followers in Wondedzo Extension in particular adds another dimension. These families are deeply into commercial horticulture and are often very successful. This is reliant on the deployment of large numbers of wives and children as labour as part of what has been called a 'traditional idiom of accumulation'; although frankly some may regard it as simple exploitation. As someone commented, 'When we came here, we had very few children. But today, we have lots of children, which has created a demand for schools.' Success through agricultural production therefore leads to a whole range of other criteria that were mentioned, including good housing infrastructure, adequate and nutritional food, livestock ownership (goats, cattle, broilers etc.), ownership of farm equipment and education of children. As in other areas, a number of shocks have disturbed people's ability to produce, but it was the ability to bounce back that was seen as key. As one Clare farm participant commented, 'Success is the ability to bounce back after some disturbances. For example, the ability to reconstruct a bridge after its destruction by floods. Or the ability to restock following the death of cattle.' This type of resilience can therefore be individual, but more often than not will be collective and relational, relying on the mobilisation of labour for bridge repair or loaning of cattle for restocking, for example. Perhaps more than any other discussion, in Clare farm, community investments in public goods – good roads, access to public transport, schools, clinics etc. – were emphasised as central to success. Community level development (kubudirira kwenharaunda) and cooperation was seen as essential. The emphasis was on a sense of place and collective commitment to it, and the need to respond to the particular characteristics of the farm. This required coming together through unification, ' Kubatana kwavanhu munharaunda '. One aspect of changing social relations that got special mention in these discussions was the empowerment of women in the post land reform era, and particularly now with husbands have passed on or infirm and unable to work. These were relatively large farms, with scope for independent activity by men and women. This was not a farm where women had small garden plots for what are often dismissively called 'women's crops'; instead, these were reasonably-sized commercial operations where women needed to be directly involved, developing the farm business, driving cars/trucks, managing market connections, keeping budgets/accounts and so on. As someone from Clare farm commented, 'In the past, we were told that men were better farmers than women. But now we see a lot of very good women farmers. We see household's farming activities even improving after the death of the husband. Nowadays you even here people saying: that woman is a far much better farmer than other men.' Women have become especially good farmers on these farms, and many have taken over successfully after their husbands have passed on. This has been facilitated again by a range of relational interactions generating success, including seminars, women's platforms and technologies (such as WhatsApp where women share information in groups). Women too are more mobile these days than was the case in the past, often moving between the farm and town as part of marketing of commercial products. Table 1: Transitions in Clare farm Clare farm saw the highest turnover in ranking level of any site from 2008 to 2025 – admittedly 17 years being over a longer time period than some other sites. Only 32 households remained in the same rank over this period, and there are now many more households on the farm who were not there in 2008 (mostly subdivisions but also purchases). The households of 2025 were very different to those of 2008, not least because those still alive are 17 years older; and in some cases now very old. Of those that changed rank, they moved equally up and down. 37.5% (12 households) remained static (2 households remained in SG1, 5 households remained in SG2 and 5 households remained in SG3. 31.3% (10 households) decreased their rank by moving down to one or two categories over the period. 31.3% (10 households) increased their ranking by moving one or two rankings over the period. Overall, 62.5% (20 households) had changed rank. Wondedzo Extension Table 2: Transitions in Wondedzo Extension By contrast, in Wondedzo extension very few households decreased their rank (just two households), while many more increased their rank. Many also remained static. Overall turnover was high, although less than Clare. 47.2% (17 households) remained static (13 households remained in SG1, 3 households remained in SG2 and 1 household remained in SG3. 5.6% (2 households) decreased their rank moving down to one or two categories over the period. 47.2% (17 households) increased their ranking moving one or two rankings over the period. Overall, 52.8% (19 households) had changed rank. The contrast between Clare and Wondedzo Extension is interesting. In the mid-2000s, both felt the same – prosperous farming areas, going places. Today, there is quite a contrast. Clare farm households have not been able to manage the generational transition as effectively, and there has often been a decline following the death of a husband. By contrast, in Wondedzo Extension the impact of a husband's death has not been as dramatic, and in some cases, widows have improved their status. This is because, despite first appearances, these were not similar sites. Clare was occupied by many war veterans and others also come from the same nearby communal area. They had come to farm and did so successfully, but most did not have other options to fall back on. By contrast, the Wondedzo Extension farmers were often diversified entrepreneurs. Farming may have been central, but they also had other businesses, which were also managed by wives. On the death of a husband there were more options, and widows were able to tap into these effectively. The following sections explain some of these transitions, combining information from both sites. Case studies I: transitions to a higher rank The reasons for increases in success rank included adult children (often with high-paying jobs, including in the diaspora) investing in the farm, often through projects and paying for labour and assisting elder parents. In other cases, widows who took over successfully were able to improve things, highlighting the new-found capacities of many women in the land reform areas commented on earlier. In other cases, people returned from town or other farms (acquired as multiple land acquisitions in the early 2000s) and began full-time farming. Amongst those in the Apostolic sect, the continued increase in wives and children (one with 30 wives and over a hundred children) has allowed the boosting of success in the eyes of workshop participants. Those who managed to move from SG3 to SG2 did so through various mechanisms, usually a windfall that allowed some investments. So, in Wondedzo extension, one gained roora cattle as a result of a marriage agreement and created a small irrigation plot; another resolved a land dispute and was able to create a poultry project. These small, incremental moves with a limited capital injection have allowed a move towards greater success, with many expecting a subsequent move upwards to SG The following cases illustrate some of these dynamics. Clare Case 1. MM (from SG3 to SG1). MM inherited his father's plot following his death. His father had acquired the farm in the early 2000s with the help of his sister who was working as a headmistress at a local school in Chatsworth, but was heavily involved during the invasions. MM works in Canada. Recently, he has heavily invested in boreholes and irrigation equipment and has established a macadamia nut orchard using proceeds from diaspora. Currently, he is installing a ZESA (mains electricity) line at his farm, connecting it from nearby Chatsworth town. Case 2. (from SG2 to SG1). A 2008 success ranking exercise placed the late PK's household in SG3. PK was a war veteran and retired soldier. He passed away in 2023 due to kidney failure. Soon after his death, his 33-year-old son (TK) returned to the farm after a long sojourn in Pretoria. He explained: 'Following the death of my father, I realised that my mother was struggling to farm. So, I decided to return home with my wife to help my mother with farming. I was working in construction industry in Pretoria, but these days South Africa is difficult to live in.' TK currently lives with his mother but was planning to build his own homestead within his mother's plot. Case 3. (from SG2 to SG1). BB is 54 years old and her husband is an environmental health technician and councillor. The household acquired the plot in 2000. BB's household was ranked in SG2 in 2018. Recently, the household has ascended to SG1 category. During the early years of settlement, they engage in irrigation using a 'bucket' (manual) system, but latter purchased a 7.5HP and later 20HP water pumps, as well as drip irrigation. These investments were premised on the husband's savings from his salary. They grow cabbages, onions and tomatoes, and used the proceeds to pay children's school fees. They also purchased cattle with proceeds from farming and savings from husband's wages. Recently, the household has drilled a borehole. While her husband is still employed as a civil servant, BB runs the farm when the husband is away. Wondedzo Extension Although there are many more upward transitions at this site, the selection below focuses on those that moved from SG3-SG1 only. Case 5. EM. Originally from Chikombedzi, EM's parents acquired land in the early father died in 2004, but he and his siblings remained on the plot. The household was placed in SG3 in 2008. In 2006, EM started irrigating a small area with buckets from a small dam. He grew vegetables, which he sold locally and in Masvingo. From the proceeds, he was able to purchase a foot water pump. In 2010, he then purchased 5 HP for US$220 and irrigation pipes in the following year. As a member of Mapostori sect, he has 31 wives and many children who are all a source of cheap labour. He has since invested in a 30 HP and have drilled a borehole. Today, EM operates one of the largest horticulture enterprises in Wondedzo Extension. It is not surprising then that EM's household was placed in SG1 category recently. Case 6. PV (from SG3 to SG1). In 2008, PV's household was placed in SG3 despite having some cattle and 'good home' at the time. He was an absentee farmer as he was still at work. He was employed at the Ministry of Health. Now he is retired and now a fulltime farmer. In the recent years, he has invested in boreholes and drip irrigation. In fact, he was the first farmers to invest in drip irrigation in the area. Besides irrigation, he also rears pigs, broilers and egg layer chickens. In addition, he is one of the largest herd owners in Wondedzo, and engaging in pen fattening. Case 7. PM (from SG3 to SG1). Like PV, PM was an absentee in 2008. At the time, he was working as a builder in Namibia. Very little production was carried out for several years. It is not surprising then that his household was placed in SG3 in 2008. Today, he is now a fulltime farmer. Over the years, he has since invested in a good home, irrigation (solar-powered submissive pump). During the success ranking discussions, PM was described as 'mbada' (leopard) – another slang term used to describe a strong and hardworking person. In addition to farming, he is a builder locally and in town. By diversifying is income sources, PM has managed to improve his quality of life. Case 8. TM (from SG3 to SG1). He inherited the plot from his father (R) who was a war veteran and major in the army. During the success rankings, TM was described as a 'mbinga' because he runs off-farm businesses in (including restaurants) in town. Despite having good quality source of income, he has not built a proper homestead at the plot, although he supports two of his siblings who have built their own homesteads at the plot. He is also politically connected to the party-state, illustrated by having a borehole drilled through ZANU-PF party recently. Case studies II: transitions to a lower rank The causes of decline mentioned in the success ranking workshops included death of the male household head, succession conflicts and misfortunes in business/work. In a number of prominent cases, family disputes have led to the precipitous collapse of once thriving farms, and participants in our group ranking discussions pointed to the need for family harmony and cohesion as a key criterion for success, especially when thinking about transitions across generations. These types of decline were particularly common in Clare farm. The following illustrate these dynamics from the two sites. Clare Case 9: RS (SG1 to SG3). A 2008 success ranking exercise placed RS's household in SG1. The now late RS was born in 1963 at Rasa near Bhasera in Gutu communal area. He came to Clare farm in 2000 and was one of the leaders of the invasion. He was allocated a plot of 70 hectares, and quickly cleared 9 ha for farming. He invested substantially in the new area. He built a good home, with four houses. In 2008, he owned 14 cattle and 51 goats, as well as other agricultural equipment such as ploughs and scotch-cart. He was also a good networker, able to make connections which have benefited his livelihood options. During the early years of resettlement, he held several positions at local level, including Secretary for the war veteran group during the land invasions (which he helped coordinate across several farms), Base Commander of Clare farm, and later he was elected Political Commissar for Ward 32 then ZANU-PF Party Chairman. He was also elected Secretary for Lands and Resettlement in the District Coordinating Committee. These connections allowed him to gain access to government schemes, most notably through Operation Maguta, and he received seed and fertiliser on loan. However, in 2008, a series of events led to a decline. He and one of his wives had fallen acutely ill; they were treated for tuberculosis and diagnosed as HIV positive. RS and his wife's ill health derailed the household's production and sapped the household's resources. In 2009, RS tried to burn down the house where his now estranged second wife lived. She escaped and fled, while he was later arrested and charged. However, before the case could be heard, he took his own life in May 2009. Following his death and that of his first wife, the estranged wife left for South Africa, leaving the plot unoccupied. In 2012, after 'nyaradzo' (a ceremony held following the death of a person), RS's brothers asked RS's oldest son (MS) to take over the farm as the first-born son. RS's brothers also asked MS's mother – RS's first wife whom he had divorced a long time ago – to return at the farm. This caused upset among the other half-siblings, and one of the half-siblings accused MS of grabbing all the father's assets. This prompted MS and his mother to abandon the farm. Although the half-brothers have 'reconciled', nothing is happening at the farm to this day. Case 10: JH (SG1 to SG2). JH was born in Serima in 1953. She and her husband acquired a self-contained plot in Clare in the year 2000. According to her, 'In 2000, we heard that people will be given land and my husband then applied because he wanted a plot. He said that in the communal areas we were crowded, and I do not want to be settled in an A1 villagised farm that resembles the communal areas.' At the time, they were both full-time farmers in the nearby Serima communal . At settlement, they had 8 head of cattle and a plough. Between 2001 and 2002, the household cleared 9ha of crop field. They grew maize, rapoko, sweet potatoes, roundnuts and groundnuts for both consumption and sale. From 2003 to 2009, the household managed to buy a scotch-cart, plough and cultivator, fencing the whole farm and paddocks, as well as educating their last-born son up to form 6 with maize proceeds. The household's herd had increased to 17 at the time. As a result, the household of JH was placed in SG1 in 2008. The household was on an upward trajectory during this period. As a good farmer with a good record of selling maize to the GMB, JH's husband used to gain access to inputs from Operation Maguta. However, a series of events has led to a decline. These include the death of JH's husband in 2010 due to old age; January disease led to the death of cattle (resulting in lack of draft power and adequate manure) and children who were once a source of cheap labour have come of age and left for urban jobs. All these factors have led to the reduction of area cultivated from 9ha to 2ha. As a result, JH's household was recently been ranked as SG2. As JH noted, 'A lot of things have changed. When my husband was still alive, we used to harvest a lot of maize. In Ward 1, we were always number one every season when it comes to crop farming. It's all gone now. All things come to an end. Who can do what my husband was doing now? My husband would never leave the crop fields. Every season we would hold a 'humwe'. I would brew traditional beer and my husband would invite his friends from Chiriga for humwe. Now I can't do all this when 'baba vemusha' (father of homestead) is no longer there.' Case 11: CC (SG1 to SG3). CC's household is an example of 'accumulation from above'. In 2008, the household was ranked in SG1. During this period, participants in the success ranking exercise described the household as 'above us all'. The household had a poultry enterprise of 300 to 500 birds, which were sold in Harare. Also, during this period, he was working at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, where he managed to acquire a tractor under the Farm Mechanisation programme and other financial loans. In addition, he made substantial investments on the farm, purchasing irrigation equipment and building a very big and elaborate house. However, in recent times, things have declined. The poultry business has since collapsed. Overall, very little is happening at the farm. Wondedzo extension Case 12. MC (from SG1 to SG2). The late MC acquired land in the early 2000s. She was one of the few women who got land in their own right, although she was married at the time. Her husband had a plot at Mukosi settlement. In 2008, MC's household was ranked in SG2 category. The participants of the success ranking at the time described her as a 'good farmer', with most farming equipment. Through farming, she was able to invest in irrigation infrastructure and educating her children. However, she passed away and husband took over. Following her passing, there has been a decline. According to participants of the success ranking, this is because 'he has too many wives'. Case 13. EG (from SG1 to SG2). EG and her husband acquired land in the early 2000s. EG's household was ranked in SG1 category in 2008. At the time, they were described by participants of the success ranking as 'proper farmers.' They were full-time farmers, and grew maize, cotton, groundnuts and rapoko; and regularly sold maize to GMB. Using proceeds from maize, they managed to buy a plough and scotch-cart. However, for various reasons, the household has declined to SG2 category. The death of the husband combined with the outbreak of January Disease in the early 2020s, which led to the death of all the household's cattle, resulting in lack of draft power and manure. Case studies III: maintaining a high rank Thirteen households in Wondedzo Extension have managed to maintain their SG1 status as compared to only two in Clare. As mentioned above, households in Wondedzo Extension have managed to effectively manage succession transition than those in Clare farm. In addition, most farmers in pursued diversified livelihood portfolios, with wives and children often involved in off-farm activities, such that even after the death of the male household head those households were able to maintain their high status. This can be clearly seen in the following examples. Case 14: AM is now in her early 80s, and is originally from nearby Masvingise area in Gutu South communal area. Although married at the time, she acquired a plot in Wondedzo Extension on her own account in the early 2000s. At that time, her husband was working as a bus inspector in Masvingo. On acquiring the land, the household cleared a 5ha arable field, moved their large herd to the plot and built a good home. Her husband later passed away in 2006, but the household maintained a high rank. She grew maize, rapoko and groundnuts. She regularly sold maize to GMB. A 2008 success ranking placed the household in SG1. At that time, she had 'lots of cattle'. In 2021, in consultation with her children, she took the decision to return to her communal areas home because of old age. As a family, they then decided to exchange the plot with her sister's son who had a smaller A1 villagised plot in Stanmore B irrigation plot. They approached the District Administrator (DA) so that he could facilitate the process. However, the DA was against the idea. According to AM, 'the DA first asked if we were related to the person who we wanted to exchange the land with. I told him that he was my sister's son. And, he said, in that case, 'this was not right'. He asked why I was giving away my own children's 'nhaka' (inheritance) to someone else's son. 'Your sister's son does not share the same blood with your children', he said. He advised us to go back home and think carefully again. We returned to the DA several times, but his answer never changed. Seeing that the DA was not going to approve our request, my children (including married daughters) then sat down among themselves and decided that my youngest son (T) would take over the plot as he had not inherited anything from the parents. The older son (TB) had inherited the old homestead in communal areas and house in Masvingo town following the death of their father. So it was only fair that the young son also inherits the plot.' Once they had agreed, the children then secretly built a new homestead within the old stand in the communal areas, and comfortably furnished it for their mother. 'This made me very happy that my children could come up with such a plan. If the DA had approved our request, we would have got rid of the plot. I am grateful to the day.' Today, her son who is also a successful businessman in Gweru is now the new owner of the plot and is now registered in his name. He owns nearly 200 cattle, and is even renting additional grazing land from other farmers. It is therefore not surprising that the household retained SG1 status thanks to careful succession planning. Case 15. Originally from Mutema area in Gutu, EC and her husband acquired a plot in Wondedzo Extension in 2000. Her husband had been working as a mechanic for many years before he became a pastor in one of the Pentecostal churches in 2000. On acquiring the farm, they invested in housing infrastructure and clearing of 10ha of crop fields. At settlement, they had a herd of 8 cattle, which later increased to 35 through natural growth. They regularly harvested a lot of maize (up to 30 tonnes in good seasons) and sold to GMB. They also engaged in horticulture near Mutirikwi river, and sold their products (leaf vegetables, onions and tomatoes) at KuTrain market. Using proceeds from farming, they managed to set up a private school (linked to the church) and to educate their children (some up to tertiary level). One of her daughters worked as a school teacher at the family's private school, one was a secretary at the family's school, and the other was self-employed as a cross-border. In 2008, the household was ranked in SG1 category. At the time, participants of success rankings described the husband as a 'number one farmer here.' The household had 8 oxen (making two spans of 4 oxen), and hired as many as four permanent workers. From 2014 through to 2023, the household also constructed a very large modern house, which is comfortably furnished, using income from cattle and maize sales. In 2021, EC's husband passed away. Despite his death, the household has retained its SG1 status to this day. All three of her daughters were sending remittances back home, which were used to pay workers and buy inputs. Both of her two sons were at home, farming with her, although the younger son suffers from mental illness. The household has16 head of cattle. Last season, she received inputs to engage in wheat production under Command Agriculture on her irrigation plot. In sum, these two A1 self-contained cases demonstrate the potential of accumulation from below through agriculture over time. This can be sustained with labour, supervision and coordination at the farm and through marketing networks. External investment is important but not vital, and many households have prospered for many years through agriculture-driven success. However, demographic change challenges this pattern of continued accumulation. In Clare, the deaths of husbands often caused major disruptions, with declines being seen in household status. This was in part because there were frequently few alternative income sources and diversified business interests to draw on. This was unlike in Wondedzo extension, where people maintained quite diversified livelihood portfolios and were not just farmers. These conditions influence how in different sites demographic change and generational transition has been negotiated quite differently, with major consequences for 'success' in the long term.
