B H Kinsey looks at how food security and livelihoods have been affected by resettlement in Zimbabwe in the last 30 years. Presented at 'Moving Forward with Pro-poor Reconstruction in Zimbabwe' International Conference, Harare, Zimbabwe, (25 and 26 August 2009)

1. The Impact of Resettlement
on Food Security & Livelihoods
Three decades of research on agrarian
change in Zimbabwe
B H Kinsey
BWPI/CASS
Toward Poverty Focused Reconstruction and Development
25-26 August 2009

2. Background I
• Longest study of households ever
undertaken in Africa—28+ years
• Most recent round of fieldwork in July
2009
• 400 households resettled in the early
1980s (in three NRs – 2, 3 & 4) – Model A
• 150 communal area households from the
communities of origin of those resettled

3. Background II
• Multi-disciplinary: economics, rural sociology,
anthropology, clinical nutrition, geography,
agriculture, political science, law, finance,
remote sensing & GIS
• Multi-dimensional: agricultural & economic
performance, growth of social capital,
succession & inheritance, impact of drought,
effects of risk & uncertainty, ethnography,
resource conservation, sustainability, local
leadership, health & productivity, etc.

4. Background III
• Output: Numerous Masters & PhD theses (from
8 different universities) and some 106
publications in leading journals since 2000 (45
prior to 2000)
• Impact: Minimal. Operational and technical staff
have been highly engaged and responsive.
Policymakers have been completely indifferent
to the results of research, no matter how
germane to their areas of responsibility

5. Background IV
Original approach – 4 models
• A – Family-based (now A1). Continuously
evaluated with mixed results.
• B – Collective cooperatives. Evaluated very
negatively & abandoned.
• C – Peri-estate agriculture. One very positive
evaluation but no further development.
• D – Livestock-based resettlement. Never
properly evaluated.

6. The trajectory of welfare following resettlement
7 Level of welfare measure
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Position prior to resettlement
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Time -----►
Target level of benefits
?
?
?
Benefits
per household per capita
.

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

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

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

10. Moving forward
?