|
|
|
The Impact of Land Reform on Commercial Farm Workers' Livelihoods
|
|
|
4. MAIN FINDINGS
|
| |
Wealth Ranking
Wealth ranking on the farms visited mainly focused on the amount of income a household could generate through employment of one or more members of the household and engagement in other income generating activities. Therefore on farms where there was not a lot of such activities, the wage grading system was used to rank the different groups, with the skilled workers being the better-off group. However on such farms the difference in livelihoods was said to be not so different since the wage scale differences were very minor. However the less privileged groups on such farms were households solely dependent on seasonal work, since as the name indicates, their employment is limited to certain times of the year. This therefore affects their ability to provide food for their families during the months they will be out of employment. The seasonal workers were also less likely to have dry land fields and gardens to supplement their food.
As the wealth-ranking varied significantly by farm (linked to how the farm had been affected by the land reform process), wealth groups are described within the section on each farm rather than being consolidated here.
Baseline Farm
The baseline farm has neither been designated, occupied or resettled, and is operating normally.1 Comparing the household economies on this farm with those of workers who are still fully employed on the other farms visited, it appears that the situation of workers on this farm is quite representative. Nonetheless, it is recognised that this is certainly not a perfect substitute for a picture of the other farms before they were designated, occupied, or resettled, and therefore indicative rather than strict comparisons should be made.
Two wealth groups were identified on this farm by key informants, the poor and the better-off. The main difference between the two groups is the level of the salary of the main income-earner, with the better-off comprising those higher up on the wages-skills hierarchy. Other differences arise as a result of this difference in income, and these are described below.
Food Sources
These percentages refer to the percentage of minimum daily calorific needs, averaged out over the year, met through each source. 2,100kcal per person per day is taken as the minimum daily requirement in this assessment. The percentages do not necessarily add up to 100%. In this case the better-off group consume approximately 100-120% of their needs, meaning 2,100 - 2540kcal per person per day, while the poor group consume approximately 95-105% of their needs. In general, therefore, we can say that commercial farm workers on unaffected farms are able to meet their minimum food requirements.
The main differences in the food baskets of the two wealth groups appear to be in terms of the quantity of each item consumed, rather than the range of items within that basket. The poor consume less mealie meal than the better-off, less oil, less meat and fish, less bread and less milk, but consume more wild fruits.
For both of the wealth groups, it was found that purchasing is by far the most important source of their food. As will be further discussed under the "income" and "expenditure" sections, these purchases are intimately linked to employment on the farms because (a) most food is purchased from farm shops accessible only to farm workers, often at significantly subsidised prices, and (b) the income which the workers use to purchase the food comes almost exclusively from employment and other activities on the farm.
Permanent farm workers are also allocated small plots of land by the farmer to cultivate for themselves. On the baseline farm these plots were approximately Ѕ acre in size, and were sufficient to produce around 250kg of maize plus some weeks' of green consumption. The farmer on this farm provides the workers with the necessary inputs such as seeds and fertilizers to cultivate the land for free.2 On this farm, plot sizes are not very flexible and workers receive the same support in inputs, therefore production from the plots does not differ significantly between the wealth groups.
In addition to the above main sources of food, there are a number of smaller, supplementary sources for each group. The better-off can afford to keep small livestock such as chickens or ducks, which are mainly kept for consumption rather than sale. Except during the winter months, both groups are also able to engage in fishing around a dam on the farm to which the farmer grants them free access. For the poor group, collecting wild fruits (such as matohwe, matamba, mazhanje, hacha and tsvanzva) also contributes a small amount to their food intake.
Income Sources
The table and charts below show the amount of income earned from the various activities undertaken by the two wealth groups, both in absolute cash terms and as proportions of total income.
Average Monthly Earnings (Z$) from Each Income Source; Baseline Farm:
| Source |
Better-Off Group |
Poor Group |
| Permanent Employment |
4,200 |
2000 |
| Piecework |
500 |
1050 |
| Poultry keeping |
375 |
0 |
| Trading |
500 |
400 |
| Gardening |
200 |
200 |
| Fish selling |
100 |
0 |
| |
|
|
| Total |
5,875 |
3,650 |
The ways that the two wealth groups have of generating income on the baseline farm are on the surface quite similar, though the actual amounts differ substantially. Both groups source 80-85% of their income through permanent or seasonal piecework on the farm. However, the better-off group is comprised of those higher up the salary-scale and/ or the more skilled workers, and therefore they earn the largest part of their income from their permanent salaries. Poor households earn less from their salaries, and therefore have to supplement them by undertaking additional piecework, mainly on a seasonal basis. This work is either done after regular working hours by the permanent employee himself, or by other household members such as the wife or an older child. While better-off households also undertake some piecework, it is more in the form of overtime by the primary income-earner than seasonal or casual work by additional household members. Workers on this farm may be eligible for a number of other bonuses provided by the farmer, for example:
- If a 26-day month is worked, workers are given a Z$200 food subsidy
- Other workers considered to have worked well during the month may be given a discretionary Z$200 bonus
- There is a Z$10,000 gratuity for workers who have worked for more than eight years
Salaries for permanent farm workers are based on a 26-day working month (i.e. 6 days per week), leaving a limited amount of time to expand on other activities. Other household members, therefore, are generally responsible for bringing in the income from other sources.
Most households at different times engage in petty trade, typically the buying and selling-on of small foodstuffs such as vegetables. Similarly, many families can earn small amounts of income (on average Z$200 per month) by selling vegetables grown on their own plots. Better-off households have an additional source of income through the sale of poultry and eggs. While this can be quite lucrative, only a relatively small proportion of the better-off group carry out this activity. The better-off also engage in fishing near the dam on the farm, and can sell a small amount of their catch.
What is important to note from this section in considering the impact of the land resettlement programme is how most of these sources of income are inextricably linked to the commercial farm itself. Work on the farm provides a salary, overtime and additional piecework opportunities; it provides access to land and inputs for gardens; and it provides access to fishing grounds. These sources account for a total of almost 85% of both groups' income. Only poultry-keeping and petty trade are not directly related to the workers' position on the farm, though even these are indirectly linked in terms of markets for the goods and getting income as capital to undertake these activities.
Expenditure
Given that poorer households typically earn less than two-thirds the amount that the better-off earn, it is necessary to look at the differences in how those incomes are spent to see which things those with less income spend less on.
From the diagram above, which compares the actual cash expenditure on various categories of items, it is clear that expenditure on food (both staples and other foodstuffs) does not decrease proportionately with declining income. As was seen earlier when discussing food intake, both groups purchase and consume quite a similar food basket, with the main difference being that the better-off consume approximately 10% more of most goods than the poor.
It is also important to note that grain prices on commercial farm stores seem to be set either at the lower end of the range of prevailing market prices, or even slightly below the market price. On the baseline farm in March, mealie meal was selling at Z$5.50 per kg, while the market rates quoted in the area ranged from Z$5.50 to Z$8.33/ kg.3
The other categories of expenditure that do not decrease in line with income are beer, tobacco and healthcare. As the latter would be considered an essential and the former luxuries, this is a somewhat worrying finding. This is an example of the intra-household allocation of resources not working to the maximum benefit of the household as a whole, as beer consumption is generally limited to the male head of household.
In terms of healthcare, this baseline farm is not necessarily representative of the majority of farms. This is because this farm has a Farm Health Worker paid for by the farmer, who gives initial treatment and some drugs for free to farm workers. Further consultation and other drugs have to be paid for. While most farms in the Mashonaland provinces have benefited from the Farm Health Worker scheme, many others in those provinces and the majority of farms in the other provinces do not have access to healthcare on the farm. Those without such access have to travel long distances - usually 10-15km - to government health facilities4 , adding substantially to the costs associated with healthcare.
The difference between the two wealth groups on the baseline farm in terms of spending on education is very striking. The explanation for this is that education on this farm is provided for free by the farmer for Grades 1 to 4 only. If parents want their children to continue to be educated above this level, they must send them to board at the nearest government school (the distance to those schools would make it unfeasible, and/ or prohibitively expensive for children to commute every day). Combining the costs of fees with boarding, most poor families simply cannot afford to pay for this service and therefore families either pay a high amount for education or nothing at all.
Another category on which the poor spend less is non-food items such as soap, lotion, paraffin, candles and matches. The "other" category was added to fill the gap between what interviewees listed as their monthly expenditures and their income. It has been assumed that items such as clothing, blankets and small household assets, which interviewees mentioned purchasing and having but which are not purchased monthly, account for most of this category. It also would make sense that the poor spend less on this category than the better-off: they would either purchase less of such items, or replace old items less frequently. Indeed, one of the differences between the wealth groups specified by the workers themselves was the quantity and range of small household assets (ranging from furniture and radios, to TVs and fridges) owned by each group.
The diagram below compares the relative share of income spent on these different categories by both wealth groups.
One further point of note arising from this diagram is that the poor group spends very close to 50% of their income on food. This figure is commonly used as a benchmark to indicate a high level of poverty.
Footnotes:
- "Operating normally" here means normal in relation to other commercial farms at this time. It is recognised that all farms and other sectors have been affected by the prevailing economic situation, and therefore are not "normal" in relation to previous years. However this research attempts to focus on the effects of the land reform process only. Earl & Moseley (1996) could, to a limited extent, provide a comparative picture from earlier years.
- The typical plot size allocated to workers on commercial farms in Mashonaland was found by FCTZ/ FEWS (1999: p29) to be 0.3ha (0.75 acres), indicating that the baseline farm is not significantly unrepresentative in this regard.
- FEWS (2001, p20) quote prices for (unmilled) maize in Febraury 2001 in the Mashonaland as ranging from Z$3.89 to Z$8.33/kg.
- FCTZ, 1999: p28
|
|
Related documents