|
|
|
The Impact of Land Reform on Commercial Farm Workers' Livelihoods
|
|
|
3. METHODOLOGY AND TOOLS USED
|
| |
The Household Economy Approach (HEA) methodology was used, as it is a framework for analysing household food security and a population's needs. Information is collected on the various options and strategies that households in different wealth groups employ to secure access to food and cash income, and their patterns of expenditure.
Usually in this approach, a particular geographical area is focused on and a baseline picture is developed to describe different wealth groups' livelihood strategies in a self-defined "normal" year. The baseline picture can then be compared with the situation after a "shock" (such as drought, market disruption or a change in employment opportunities) to see how people are able to cope. The scope of the current research was such that four different scenarios relating to the land reform programme had to be examined, and these scenarios had arisen on different farms. Ideally a baseline picture for each farm should have been developed for comparison. However, that would have taken twice as long and time was limited, and furthermore it was hoped to filter out the separate effects of the general macro-economic problems which have affected the country in recent years and just to focus on the effects of the land question. Therefore it was decided to select a different farm, unaffected by designation, resettlement or occupation to act as a baseline.
The study covered four farms in Mashonaland West and one farm in Mashonaland East. The numbers of employees on the farms varied from less than thirty, to seven hundred, while the main crops produced were maize, tobacco, wheat, cotton and soya beans. Cattle-ranching was an additional activity on two farms. Permission to talk to the workers was granted by the farm owners and farm managers. Other than in the occupied farm, where only one focus group discussion was held, an average of three groups were interviewed plus the farmer himself. Farm managers/ foremen were also interviewed on two farms. The focus groups comprised 5-6 people each, and participants were selected to meet the criteria previously given for each wealth group. Focus groups were then asked to discuss the situation of "people like them" instead of their own individual circumstances as a means of gaining a picture of the typical situation in that group. Between the focus groups and individual interviews, a total of 84 people were interviewed for this assessment. At the request of those interviewed, the farms in question will not be referred to by name.
Tools used
The main tool used in gathering the information were focus group discussions (FGD) with mixed community groups, and key informant interviews. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were used to obtain information on wealth groups within the communities, on typical household's sources of food and income and common social division of labour including roles played by children and women in sourcing food and cash income.
A semi-structured interview guide was used to keep the researchers focused. Proportional piling was also used to assist in the cross-checking of quantitative information, and as a a way of realising the involvement of the target groups. Focus Group Discussions were held separately with children, who identified and described their roles in productive household activities.
Research constraints
The research was undertaken when the environment was relatively quiet, except on two farms. One had been partially occupied and the farmer is co-existing with war veterans. The farm manager could not allow some of the workers to meet with the research team for an interview as he insisted that the workers should go to work. Another farm had been fast tracked and the farmer has left. War veterans on that farm were suspicious of the motivations of the assessment team.
|
|
Related documents