Page 1 of 12

[66%]

Bachelor Of Social Sciences Honours Degree In Development Studies

[Block Release 2.2]

Faculty : Humanities And Social Sciences

Department : Development Studies

Student ‘Name : Emmanuel R Marabuka

Student’ ID. Number : L0110064T

Module Name : Land Reform In Zimbabwe

Lecturer : Dr E. Munsaka

Due Date : 03 May 2013

Email Address : emmanuelrems@gmail.com

Question : Give a brief and concise explanation

of the following models of land resettlement once adopted in

Zimbabwe: Models A, B, C, D,

Page 2 of 12

Land reform programme started soon after the Lancaster House conference which was held in

1979. Therefore, land before independency, white people who the minority possessed large

areas of land. Thereafter, the purpose of the Second Chimurenga was to address the land

issue which was not equally distributed between the white and the blacks. Land Reform in

Zimbabwe was seeking to address three key issues, namely: inequitable land distribution,

insecurity of land tenure and unsustainable and sub-optimal use of land in communal areas

and large-scale commercial farms respectively (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, 1999). At

Lancaster House the land issue was addressed through the willing seller willing buyer

principle which lasted from 1980 to 1990. Therefore, land reform Zimbabwe was executed

through three phases the first is the willing buyer willing seller from 1980 to 1990 and the

second is the compulsory acquisition of land from1990 to 1998 and finally the fast track land

reform which was done from 1998 to 2002. In all, these phases of land reform, there were

models which were put in place for the land reform to be undertaken in an orderly manner.

The term “land reform models” is used to refer to physical land use and settlement plans

which set a fixed number of hectares per household or co-operative depending on the type of

production to be undertaken (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, 1999). The land reform was

accomplished in in four models which are Model A, B, C and D. Nevertheless this essay

seeks to give a brief and concise explanation of land reform model A, B, C, D.

Land resettlement in Zimbabwe was based on Models A, B, C and D. In Model A, resettled

households were given 5 hectares of land to be farmed on an individual household basis.

Model B involved the formation of cooperatives to manage farms on a cooperative basis.

Model C was based on the nucleus of a commercial estate while households had their own

individual plots but acted as out-growers. Model D was intended for low rainfall areas in

natural regions IV and V which involved the use of ranches for grazing by communal

communities (Mudege 2005). Therefore, Zimbabwe’s land reform programme essentially

represents the transfer of agricultural farmland formerly owned or run by large-scale white

commercial farmers and corporate establishments to black farmers operating at all levels,

small, medium and large scale [Gonese et al, undated]. The objective of land reform was to

de-congest the over-populated and / or overstocked wards and villages for the benefit of

landless people and to indigenize the large scale commercial settlement schemes.

Land allocation of land in Zimbabwe has been done through respective resettlement models,

with the most popular one being the Model A, which has since assumed a new name as the

A1 resettlement model (Marongwe undated). In the first phase, the main resettlement models

Page 3 of 12

used in land allocation was Model A. Therefore, model A was the major model used in all

land reform programmes held in Zimbabwe. In support to this view Marongwe alludes that,

Model A is the most common model where settlers were allocated individual arable plots and

communal grazing. Model A, was involving a village as a nucleus with individual arable

holdings and communal grazing within the village boundaries (Chitsike 2003). Settler

families were allocated residential stands, about 5 hectares of land for arable purposes and

access to communal grazing. It was the dominant type of land reform model which benefited

many people. In the same vein, Chitsike (2003) alludes that, Model A schemes have

predominated accounting for about 3 million hectares of land under the programme and

66,000 settler households. Families settled on these schemes were required to renounce any

claim to land elsewhere in Zimbabwe. In this model, settlers were not given ownership of the

land on which they were settled, but instead were given permits covering residential and farm

plots (Mudege 2005). Mudege, (2005) added that, in theory these permits could be withdrawn

should settlers fail to follow the guidance of government appointed resettlement officers who

acted to teach farmers how to farm and adjudicated in cases of conflict between resettled

people. In addition, the Zimbabwean government expected male heads of households to rely

exclusively on farming for their livelihoods and until 1992, male household heads were not

permitted to work elsewhere, nor could they migrate to cities, leaving their wives to work

these plots (Chitsike 2003).

Therefore, model A was modified and spitted into two sub-models which are model A1 and

model A2. This was done in the fast track land reform. Model A2 was an improved Model A

of the initial resettlement models in that individual farmers were allocated more land.

Therefore, A1 model is where an individual family farm is six hectares plus a common

grazing land for livestock. The homesteads are in villages and farmers have fields at a

designated area. This sector includes self-contained A1 farms which are more than the usual

six hectares (Zimbabwe Institute Undated). A new model A2 was introduced for commercial

farming (Pazvakavambwa (Undated). Each settler gets a consolidated farm unit ranging from

50 ha in Natural Region I, and 300 ha in natural Region V (Ministry of Lands and

Agriculture, 1999). In addition, settlers have to mobilise own resources to cater for their

training and other requirements. Under the first phase of land redistribution in Zimbabwe,

there was no commercial model for individual farmers and it was introduced during fast track

land reform. Therefore, A2 farms is the commercial model of the accelerated land reform

programme where farmers were resettled in a way such that an individual has a farm where

Page 4 of 12

crop and livestock production is carried out within the farm. Pazvakavambwa (Undated) is of

the notion that, the model A2 was introduced as it was realized that unless some effort was

made to preserve commercial farming, this category would eventually disappear from the

Zimbabwe farming scene, as all land was now targeted for redistribution. The A2 model was

to replace the commercial sector but with a focus to increase the number of farmers by

demarcating land holdings larger than the A1 but not as large as the existing commercial farm

holdings (Pazvakavambwa Undated).

It may be of paramount importance to highlight successes and failures of these land reform

model A. Model A succeeded in giving many people with land at all phases of land reform.

Moreover, it managed to preserve commercial farming through the introduction of A2 models

thereby enabling people to participate in commercial farming. Women were allowed to apply

in their own rights in these modified A1 models. Also the selection still emphasises

competency and capacity to undertake commercial farming. However model A is also

associated with failures. It failed to decongest as expected the population because other

beneficiaries maintained dual homes because A2 farmers who previously owned A1 farms

had not surrendered them (Musemwa 2011). Moreover, model failed in the sense that, it was

to be associated with infrastructural development which was constrained by financial

constraints by the governments especially in the fast track land reform. Although there was

total ownership of land black farmers after the fast track, national food security was totally

compromised up now. Also the allocation of A2 farms was politically driven and mainly war

veterans and political elites benefited.

The second model of land reform was Model B which was involving the formation of

cooperatives to manage purchased farms on a collective basis. According to Ministry of

Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development, (1985) Model B entailed group settlement

composed of people with strong motivation and potential to form a cohesive social unit. The

Group size was designed to range from 50 to 200 members with all adults (including wives

and children above the age of sixteen years) eligible for full membership (Gonese undated).

Therefore Model B schemes account for about 165,000 hectares of land and 4,200 settler

households (Chitsike 2003). Therefore, cooperative schemes were designed to utilize intact

infrastructure on the acquired farms and were deemed suitable for optimizing large-scale

economies (Marongwe undated). This model was supposed to be selected for properties with

developed infrastructure for instance irrigation or infrastructure for specialised agricultural

enterprise (Chitsike 2003). This model was originally designed to facilitate possible pooling

Page 5 of 12

together of production factors so that collective farming could be done (Ministry of Lands

Resettlement and Rural Development, 1985). Collective farming was regarded as an

economic activity which could enable farmers to meet their economic and social needs while

at the same time contributing towards development of the national economy. The main

objectives of this model was to develop viable agricultural production which contributes

towards national food security, increased employment creation and economic growth as well

as to mobilise limited resources of poor citizens in order to promote farming skills, spread

overhead expenses to reduce unit cost, to achieve a degree of specialisation which an

individual cannot achieve outside co-operative farming, and to facilitate transformation of

socio-economic system through dynamic efficiency in resource allocation and equitable

distribution of proceeds (Gonese et al undated)

In model B land, equipment and other resources were held cooperatively and not as

individual assets. Moreover, each resettlement co-operative must be registered with the

Registrar of Co-operatives as a legal entity (Chitsike 2003). There was a common plot

managed by members through an elected committee and this committee was responsible to

acquire inputs and marketing the outputs but this was done cooperatively. Therefore, each

individual member was allocated an additional 0.5 hectares or some such agreed size of land

for individual cultivation Gonese et al (Undated). Gonese et al (undated) added that, for a co-

operative based on livestock production, each ranching settler should have the equivalent of

20 livestock units (LUs), including five small stock. While individuals can hold a few

livestock units for domestic purposes, the major proportion is group owned and run for

commercial purposes.

Under this model, land could be acquired anywhere in the country except Matabeleland North

Province which is ecologically unsuitable for collective crop farming. The cooperatives were

funded by the government through the annual capital budget and beneficiaries’ owns assets

which form the basis for co-operative farming. More over the Ministry of Lands,

Resettlement and Rural Development worked with DERUDE, the Department of Co-

operative Development and Agritex were to support and service the resettled cooperatives

(Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development, 1985). Therefore, each co-

operative was expected to sustain pre-purchase levels of production on the resettled former

commercial farms to maintain food production levels and economic growth (Department of

Cooperative development 1985). Therefore Department of Cooperative development

provided a resettlement package that capacitated the cooperatives, including an Establishment

Page 6 of 12

grant that financed the procurement of farm implements and development funds for land

preparation, together with financial resources for the construction of roads, bridges, dip tanks,

clinics, schools, marketing depots, rural service centres, credit facilities, farmer training and

extension services (Gonese et al undated). Therefore, the selection of farmers was initially

based on social and political considerations. This was, however, subsequently modified by a

shift from random method to the identification of people from the same community to ensure

group cohesion. According to Gonese, et al (undated) the social and political criteria

emphasised refugees, landless people, war-displaced individuals, ex-freedom fighters, ex-

farm workers and needy people irrespective of age, literacy levels, farming experience and

management capacity. Moreover, in this model, in starting from 1985 local authorities began

to consider applicants with Master Farmer certificates and previous farming experience. This

model was supported by the government because it gave technical support through Agritex.

This model was successful in the sense that it enable people of organise themselves into

groups which promoted people of the same culture with similar interest to live together.

Moreover this model enable was applicable at areas with enough rainfall to practice

commercial farming. Furthermore, beneficiaries were supported by the government with

funds and infrastructure which enable increased productivity and reduced poverty levels. The

weaknesses of this model is that it benefited few people as compared to other models like

model A.

The third model was model C which patterned on the nucleus estate concept with a core

commercial estate and/or processing facility and settler out growers. This model C entails a

combination of intensive villagised settlements and a core estate run by the Agricultural and

Rural Development Authority (ARDA) or owned by a co-operative (Ministry of Lands

Resettlement and Rural Development, 1985). Chitsike (2003) noted that, Model C accounts

for about 800 households and 17,000 hectares of land. Chitsike (2003) further alludes that,

these schemes were introduced in order to involve small producers directly in more complex

and technically demanding farm enterprises such as tobacco and dairy production. Therefore,

Model C was built around the core estate owned by the Agricultural Development Authority

(ARDA) which would provide research, training, credit, input supply and marketing services

to the settlers (Marongwe undated). Under this model, ARDA was expected to demonstrate

potential land productivity to farmers settled around the core estate and it was suitable for

those without experience in commercial farming (Gonese et al undated). In turn the settlers

were expected to work in ARDA farms in order for them to gain hands on farming

Page 7 of 12

experience. In this models member families have individual plots of 10 Hectors but share in

communal grazing (Chitsike 2003). Hence core estate is a commercial venture run by

cooperative committees; members contribute their labour to the estates the proceeds from

which are distributed to them in accordance to the labour they have put in. The operations of

Model C Schemes are similar to those of the Chisumbanje and Middle Sabi Irrigation Models

operated by ARDA (Gonese et al undated). The schemes were provided with access roads

linking all villages with a rural service centre at which Government service staff (agricultural

extension, health and education workers and resettlement officers) were based.

Therefore, these model settlers were to work hand in hand with ARDA in order for them to

gain expertise in cooperative management. Credit funds are made available through

Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) for capital development and the settlers are attached

to ARDA for technical assistance for five years. Therefore, on their part settlers provide

labour to both their arable lands and the core estate. Settlers have small plots which serve to

foster individual effort and innovativeness while the core estate demonstrates the benefits of

co-operative effort which is instilled among the farmers for eventual take over and

cooperative operation of the core estate in the wake of a handover by ARDA. ARDA also

provides, on a cost recovery basis, seedlings in cases of specialised crops; training and

mechanical tillage operations; transport for inputs and marketing of outputs and related other

technical services depending on the nature of production on the individual holdings (Gonese

et al undated). In addition, ARDA assisted in the mobilisation of loan funds particularly for

mechanisation because a high level of mechanisation is encouraged under this scheme

(Gonese et al undated). Settlers adopted a cropping schedule which was similar to ARDA’s to

enable them to apply the lessons learnt from the core estate. In addition, ARDA estate

manages and monitors their activities with assistance from settlement officers (Ministry of

Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development, 1985). Moreover, through the model ARDA

was expected to impart practical training that transforms subsistence farmers into commercial

farmers. ARDA also implements a sub-component of commercial farm settlement schemes

under which settlers are selected on the basis of agricultural professional qualification

particularly graduates from national agricultural training colleges and allocated 30 to 50 ha of

land ( Chitsike 2003).

This model was good in the sense that its intention was to capacitate settlers with farming

knowledge. Moreover, it was production oriented because it provided people with

agricultural certificates with land. Moreover this scheme enabled settlers to learn from

Page 8 of 12

ARDA also there was good marketing by ARDA. Furthermore the model was associated by

infrastructural development. The weakness of this model was ARDA benefited more than

settlers.

The fourth model is Model D which is was held at region which receives low rainfall. This

was designed for the drier agro-ecological regions IV and V, providing grazing for use by

communal areas. According to Chitsike (2003) the main objective of this model was to

reduce the pressure on communal grazing areas by increasing the amount of grazing land to

communities. Moreover, model D was formally adopted by Government of Zimbabwe in the

1983-84 periods in order to utilize resettlement land for grazing by neighbouring communal

area communities on a rotational basis while the land remained state-owned (GOZ, cited in

Marongwe undated). Since the areas were not suitable for other models, a land use approach

was designed which recognized local production potentials and constraints, responded to

local needs as expressed or preferred by the surrounding farming communities. In this

approach people were not relocated but, their livestock grazing was extended to the

communities affected while promoting optimal use of the semi-arid land on both acquired

farms and the neighbouring communal areas which otherwise has limited dry land arable

potential. A proto-type of this model exists in Gwanda District, encompassing the

Doddieburn and Manyoli ranches and nearby Guyu Communal area. Chitsike (2003)

postulate that, by 1983/84 nearly 60% of unsettled purchased land fell under Natural Regions

IV and V whose agro-ecological characteristics at best support extensive livestock production

(based on woodland vegetation or irrigation-supplemented / drought-resistant fodder crops)

and game ranching.

Therefore, grazing on the ranches started unofficially during the War of Independence but

became formalized after the acquisition of the land for resettlement in 1981-1882. The pilot

scheme at Doddieburn – Manyoli in Gwanda was implemented by ARDA but other schemes

to subsequently be DERUDE’s responsibility. During the course of access to the ranch the

community’s own (communal area) grazing is allowed to recover and residents undertake an

internal resettlement and reorganization of their arable blocks and villages in order to free as

much land for grazing as possible (Gonese et al undated). This internal resettlement process

was envisaged to take place under the authority of Rural District Councils. The communities

benefiting from this arrangement were expected to contribute to the costs of running the

ranches and paddocking their own grazing. The community’s leadership was expected to

enforce roles and responsibilities of all participants for instance control of stock numbers;

Page 9 of 12

undertaking internal reorganization, etc. The Model emphasizes the importance of integrating

communal area and resettlement planning and subsequent other development planning. Its

application is, thus, envisaged to transcend Natural Regions IV and V in the long run.

Model D was later modified and renamed the Three Tier Scheme. The three-tier scheme,

which succeeded the Model D schemes, provides 20,000 households in natural regions IV

and V with 250,000 hectares of grazing land (Marongwe undated). This model was an

improvement on the conceptual framework of the Model D Pilot scheme of the mid-1980s

which seeks to consolidate the integration of acquired commercial farms with the communal

area villages, and streamline commercial livestock production based on the animals from the

latter (Gonese et al undated). This model entails the reorganization of communal area

villages’ residential and arable lands (including social services), which constitute the 1st tier

in the model. The 2nd tier involves the development of village paddocks (also referred to as

the “near grazing area”) in the communal areas where all traditional and breeding stock are

reared – up to the carrying capacity assessed for the particular locality. The 3rd tier involved

the development of the annexed neighbouring farms into commercial ranches; all animals

grazing in this tier are not allowed to go back to the communal area but instead leave directly

for the market (Gonese et al undated). The Three tier model reinforced the non-translocation

principle in Model D by providing for the annexation by government of commercial farms

adjacent to the communal areas, with grazing managed by village committees (chaired by

traditional leaders but backed by civil servants for technical assistance) responsible for

allocating grazing rights to households (Rukuni Commission, cited in Gonese et al undated).

The strength with this model of resettlement was that, it was accordant with the region IV and

V which receive low rainfall. The weakness was that, the model was not associated with

government funds like other models. Moreover chiefs were given power to relocate people

which at the end reduce grazing communal area.

However, all models which were used in land resettlement were good in as far as land

resettlement is concerned. Moreover, land reform through all models of land reform, people

with different social classes benefited accordingly. Among all models of land reform, model

A was the dominant at all phases of land reform because it benefited many people as

compared to other models. Moreover, its modification enabled many people enter into

commercial farming through the model A2. Furthermore, all models were accordant to

natural regions which they implemented. Finally one can argue that land reform models were

Page 10 of 12

to provide a framework which people can use to distribute the land. Also it assisted in

selecting beneficiaries at each model.

Page 11 of 12

References

CHITSIKE, F. (2003). Critical Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe.

Gweru, Midlands State University Available online at:

http://www.fig.net/pub/morocco/proceedings/TS4/TS4_4_chitsike.pdf [Accessed on

04/04/2013]

Department of Cooperative Development, (1984). Progress and Problems in the

Implementation of Model B Schemes (Unpublished Paper for Collective

Gonese E. T.; Marongwe, N.; Mukora,C and Kinsey,B. LAND REFORM AND

RESETTLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN ZIMBABWE: An Overview of the

Programme against Selected International Experiences. Available at:

http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/23060/LRRPOverview.pdf;jsessionid=1u1

jl64ei6mn9?sequence=1 [Accessed on 03/04/2013]

Government of Zimbabwe (1998): Inception Phase Framework Plan 1999-2000: and

implementation plan of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2,

Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, Harare.

Marongwe, N. (undated) REDISTRIBUTIVE LAND REFORM AND POVERTY

REDUCTION IN ZIMBABWE Available at:

http://www.lalr.org.za/zimbabwe/redistributive-land-reform-and-poverty-reduction-in-

zimbabwe/at_download/file [Accessed on: 01/04/2013]

Ministry of Lands and Agriculture. (1999). National Land Policy Framework Paper,

Harare, GOZ.

Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development, (1985). Mushandike Resettlement

Irrigation Scheme (The Project Report for the IMCR).

Mudege, N, N. (2005) An Ethnography of Knowledge. Knowledge production and

dissemination in land resettlement areas in Zimbabwe: the case of Mupfurudzi. Rural

Development Sociology Group, Wageningen University Online Available at:

http://edepot.wur.nl/121711 [Accessed on: 05/04/2013]

Page 12 of 12

Musemwa, L. (2011). Economics of Land Reform Models used in Mashonaland Central

Province of Zimbabwe. South Africa, University Of Fort Hare Online Available at:

http://ufh.netd.ac.za/bitstream/10353/435/1/Musemwathesis.pdf [Accessed on 04/04/2013]

Pazvakavambwa (Undated) Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe Online Available at:

http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0002691/Zimbabwe_redistribution.pdf [Accessed on

04/04/2013]

Smallholder Irrigation Support Programme: Progress Report. (Unpublished Project

Report)

Zimbabwe Institute (Undated) Zimbabwe Land Policy Study Available on line at:

http://www.kubatana.net/docs/landr/zim_institute_land_policy_0508.doc [Accessed on

04/04/2013]