|
|
|
The Impact of Land Reform on Commercial Farm Workers' Livelihoods
|
|
|
5. SCENARIOS AND CASE STUDIES
|
| |
Using the above picture as a baseline, we will now discuss the situation on the other farms that were assessed and which have all been affected to varying degrees by the official land resettlement programme and by farm occupations.
Where the information was gathered, "before and after" comparisons will be referred to when discussing each farm, but in most cases the necessary information was not collected. It is important to note that the case studies presented should not be considered to provide a model of what happens under various conditions, and that the circumstances are likely to vary to some extent from one commercial farm to another. (It is not assumed that the situation on a cattle ranch in Matabeleland is the same as that on a horticultural operation near Harare, for example.) Nonetheless we feel that there is sufficient similarity in the household economies of commercial farm workers that indicative patterns and principles can be applied which will be of use.
The scenarios covered are:
- Farm designated for resettlement; not yet resettled; not occupied; farmer present
- Farm not designated or resettled; part-occupied; farmer still present
- Farm designated for resettlement; not yet resettled; part-occupied; farmer still present
- Farm designated; part-resettled; part-occupied; farm ceasing operations
This will allow us to gauge the independent effects of designation and occupation, and the effects of both of these combined.
Actual numbers of farms experiencing each scenario have not been precisely estimated because of a lack of detailed figures on occupations, but some indications can be derived from existing information. Out of the 3,812 commercial farms in Mashonaland, as of the end of February 72% had not been designated or resettled; 9% had actually been resettled, and the remaining 19% had been designated but not yet resettled (FCTZ, 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that occupations are most prevalent on the latter category of farm.
1. Designation
The Designated farm has not been occupied or resettled yet, meaning that the farmer still has control of his entire land and is still continuing operations, though the government may acquire the land for resettlement under the "fast-track" programme at any time.
The main issue for the farmer in the case of designation is uncertainty. There is currently no set timeframe to indicate how much time may pass between designation and actual resettlement. In addition legal questions remain surrounding the way in which the resettlement process is being carried out, and about issues of compensation. Given farmers' investments in the land, therefore, leaving as soon as their farm is designated is an extremely unattractive option for them, so most will continue their operations in spite of the designation.
The uncertainty resulting from designation has two main effects. First, access to credit for the farmer from financial institutions is likely to be denied as he cannot guarantee he will be able to harvest his crop, nor is his collateral secure. On the farm assessed, the farmer had been able to harvest his main crop as normal, however he had been refused credit for his winter wheat crop. Unless an alternative source of finance can be found, this will mean reduced production levels and presumably either reducing the numbers of days worked per week by farm workers, or laying off some of the workers entirely. All development work (i.e. construction and other investment) on the farm has been stopped.
The farmer said that the first people to be affected by reduced production will be the seasonal workers, as in the event of reduced piecework employment opportunities he said he would give first priority to his permanent workers (i.e. overtime), or to members of their families. The impact of reduced production is dealt with in more detail in the other case studies where this has already actually occurred.
The situation of seasonal or casual workers who are not permanently resident on commercial farms was not covered by this study. However, for poor households from neighbouring communal lands, informal mining areas or peri-urban areas, this type of work can be a very important source of income, and its loss could have a serious impact on their food and livelihood security5.
An immediate impact of the uncertainty is that credit facilities from the farmer have been restricted to permanent workers only. Seasonal workers now have to pay-as-they-go at the farm store. However, because of their access to credit and the difference between the farm and market prices for maize, the permanent workers quickly used their credit to buy the farmer's entire stock of maize. They then sold this on to the seasonal workers at a profit, meaning that the former have actually managed to increase their income by profiteering at the expense of the latter. The farmer has now had to purchase further stocks from other farms at closer to market prices, therefore this has been a once-off phenomenon.
Investigation into sources of food and income, and expenditure patterns revealed a very similar picture for permanent workers to the one on the baseline farm. A better-off group earn a reasonable income from the main salary of the household head, and this is supplemented by activities such as vegetable, poultry and fish sales, and petty trade. The lower group of permanent workers earn the minimum wage, and a substantial amount of income also comes from seasonal piecework by their wives. Poultry and vegetable sales make up the balance of their income. Designation, therefore, has had little immediate impact on their livelihoods.
The important point regarding designation, therefore, relates to timing issues. If this farm is not resettled by the time the winter harvest would have been ready, yet the farmer has to reduce operations and lay off workers in the meantime because of a lack of finance, a great deal of unnecessary hardship will have been caused. However if at least a date for resettlement can officially be fixed, all affected actors including the farmer, farm workers and new settlers, can make their plans accordingly.
2. Occupation
The occupied farm visited has not been designated for resettlement, but was invaded in 2000 by war veterans who occupied part of the land. The farm has now been divided between the war veterans and the farm owner, and both are currently co-existing peacefully. The farmer is running operations normally. The farm owner indicated at the time of the assessment that he and his workers were very busy and did not want to be disturbed by the exercise, therefore the researchers were only able to meet one group of key informants during the lunchtime.
A very significant aspect of the situation on this farm is that the portion of the land given to the war veterans had previously been left idle by the farmer. Therefore in spite of effectively ceding control of part of his land, he has not had to reduce his operations or the size of his workforce in any way. As a result, the partial occupation was found to have made no noticeable difference to the livelihoods of the farm workers.
One different aspect of livelihoods on this farm, which is unrelated to the land issue, is that workers are paid partially in-kind, by receiving 25kg of maize per worker each month for free and up to a further 75kg of maize per month at a heavily subsidised price (less than Z$2/ kg).6 Cash income levels and, in turn, expenditure on staple foods are lower than on the baseline farm as a result. Otherwise income levels and food and non-food consumption are broadly similar to those of farm workers on "normal" farms.
The type of arrangement existing on this farm provides a degree of normality but with a different type of uncertainty to that associated with designation. With designation, the issue is not so much whether the land will be taken, but when. With occupation, it cannot be predicted how much land will be taken, when it might be taken, and any arrangements made by the farmer with the war veterans obviously do not have any legal standing. Indeed, there is even the technical possibility that the occupation could be reversed. This makes it difficult to generalise about the effects of occupation, while the sensitivity of the situation makes it difficult even to gather specific details on individual cases. Nonetheless, this example shows that official resettlement on land which is not being utilised by the farmer would minimise the effects on farm workers.
3. Designation and Occupation
The farm assessed in this category has been affected in a number of ways by the land reform programme and occupation. The farmer owns a number of blocks of land, of which approximately 85% have been designated for resettlement; this land is then split into one section comprising around 50% of his total land which has been occupied by war-veterans and which is outside of the farmer's control, and the other 35% is designated but not yet occupied or resettled. 15% of the land therefore has been neither designated nor occupied.
This farm and its workers have been very significantly affected by land issues in the last year. 450 farm workers have lost their jobs and have had to leave the land with their families due to the occupations and the reduced production levels on the farm. The remaining workers have been kept on but their working week has been reduced from 6 days to 2-3 days, creating a very significant gap in their income.
Information on the whereabouts and situation of the workers who were laid off proved difficult to get. It was suggested that some would have gone to try to find casual work on other commercial farms, some skilled workers (including drivers and mechanics) may have found employment elsewhere, and that others may have gone to communal areas. FCTZ's 1997 survey found that 27% and 40% respectively of permanent farm workers in Mashonaland West and East (where the current research was carried out) maintained communal area homes (FCTZ: 1999, p27). Only 2 families out of the 450 who lost their jobs have been included in the fast-track resettlement programme, which is less than 0.5% of those affected. Those who are seeking work on other farms are still squatting on this farm, and their situation should be similar to that of the "unemployed" group in the next case study.
There has not been any reported influx of displaced farm workers into peri-urban settlements in Harare. Nor has FCTZ witnessed the sorts of roadside and river-bank squatter settlements which farm workers previously stated would be some of their likely destinations in the event of displacement (see Zimbizi, 2000). As a matter of priority, then, further investigation is required to gain a better picture of where farm workers who have lost their jobs and homes have actually gone. The issue of the origin of the farm workers (with many being of foreign descent) is an extremely important factor in this regard; discussion of this issue can be found in Zimbizi (2000, pp13-14) and Kibble & Vanlerberghe (2000, p6)
For those who have kept their jobs on this farm, they have had to cope with the "shock" to their household economy of a loss of approximately 33% of their total income, equivalent to approximately Z$1,000 (reducing total income to around Z$2,000), as a result of the working week being limited to 2-3 days. Workers on this farm appear to have been slightly worse off than the poor group described for the baseline farm even before the designation and occupation. Except for a handful of higher paid staff (such as the farm manager and drivers/ mechanics), the rest of the workers were found to have quite similar livelihood patterns, and therefore only one wealth group has been considered. Their total income previously was approximately Z$3,000 per month, due to a lower daily wage rate for the agricultural work compared to that paid on the baseline farm. However, their own crop production was slightly higher than on the baseline farm. Another difference is that these farm workers supplemented their agricultural incomes through gold-panning on the farm, while trade and vegetable sales were not mentioned as being very significant.
In assessing how people coped with the loss of income, the limited information that it was possible to gather suggested that the workers had reduced spending on the following:
- food: purchase and consumption of mealie meal appears to have reduced only by a small amount, with the bulk of savings coming from reduced consumption of items such as sugar, meat, bread/ flour, and potatoes/ sweet potatoes. Many interviewees reported that they had taken to reducing the number of meals they consumed at certain times of the month.
- non-food items such as soap and paraffin/ candles
- beer/ tobacco
- "other" items such as clothing and small household assets
Expenditure on services such as health and education do not seem to have been reduced. In fact the costs of educating children have increased while the number of children attending school has actually decreased. This is because the farmer used to provide transport for the children to the nearest registered school 10km away (there is no farm school), but due to the combination of financial pressures and the fuel shortages, this service has been discontinued. Some children have been withdrawn from school as a result, but this saving is cancelled out by the increased cost of bus fares for those still attending. Regarding healthcare, it should also be pointed out that although these families spend a little on healthcare, they would have great difficulty meeting any large health expenses that could arise at any time, as they have very little scope to cut back further on other expenses and have no significant assets to dispose of.
These workers do not appear to have been able to increase income from other sources to any significant degree. There was conflicting information given on the extent to which income from gold-panning had changed. Some families said they had increased their dependence on gold-panning, while others said that their income from this source had been reduced because the place where they panned was on a part of the farm that is now occupied, and the war veterans had stopped their access to it. There was also said to be little scope for increasing own crop production, fishing, or gathering wild foods, again mainly due to constraints in accessing land or fishing areas.
As a result of the cuts on food expenditure and the accompanying reduction in the numbers of meals consumed, we would estimate that the remaining workers on this farm are not currently meeting their minimum food needs and that they have a deficit in the range of 5 - 15%.
4. Designation, Resettlement and Imminent Farm Closure
This farm was in a similar position to that of the last farm discussed, having been designated and having part of the land under others' control. In this case, however, the farm was not occupied, but new settlers had been given part of the land under the fast-track programme. Because the rest of the farm was due to be resettled, the farmer had decided to wind up his operations with the harvesting of his main maize crop, and the farm was due to close on March 31st.
As with the previous farm, the process of designation and gradual resettlement resulted in some of the farm workers (almost 60% of the workforce) being laid off entirely and the rest being kept on, but working a 3-day week. A significant difference, however, is that the farm workers' compound was on a piece of land that, in spite of designation, had not yet been resettled. Therefore those workers who had been laid off had been able to stay in their houses and could still farm their small plots of land while also trying to find alternative sources of income. These two groups - employed and unemployed - constituted the wealth groups identified by those interviewed on the farm.
The employed group on this farm appeared to have similar livelihood patterns to those workers remaining on the previous farm discussed. However, we would estimate the food deficit for this group to have been in the range of 0 - 5% because of the following. (a) They seem to have been on slightly higher wages initially than those on the previous farm, (b) the wage cut seems to have been less severe, and was partially compensated for by finding more piecework on neighbouring farms, and (c) they were selling off their chickens to make some more money. Savings had been incurred by slightly reducing the quantity of maize-meal purchased, and also by reducing relatively expensive food items like sugar and meat/ fish. Although the researchers did not get a detailed breakdown of other expenditure, it could be suggested based on the information from other farms that savings were mainly made on non-food and household items and assets.
The unemployed group managed to undertake a variety of income-generating activities which brought in an estimated income of on average Z$1,710 per month. The most important activity was said to be piecework on neighbouring commercial farms, followed closely by gold panning (households estimated that they got an average of 1 ounce per month, which was sold for Z$500). Smaller amounts could be earned from the sale of some of the produce from their own plots on the farm, from selling fish caught at a dam on the farm, from selling-off their own chickens, and from petty trade.
More than half of this income is spent on purchasing food. The food so purchased is limited mainly to maize meal, salt and vegetables, and provides 55-60% of the households' calorific needs. Crops grown on the plot of land provided to them by the farmer, and which they have been allowed to maintain, are also significant, with smaller amounts coming from fishing and wild foods. As with the other farms discussed, these sources cannot be increased by any significant amount due to physical access limitations.
In fact, on this farm it was said that new settlers are charging a fee to farm workers to access the dam where fishing can be carried out. (Workers on this farm also reported that they are now pulling out poles from their wooden kitchen for use as fuel since the new plot owners do not allow them to collect firewood.) A number of these unemployed families were also engaging in begging to get food from other workers, and are seeking remittances from relatives elsewhere. However, even using all these mechanisms, it appears that they were still facing a deficit of between 5 and 20% of their minimum calorific needs.
Non-food expenditure by this group has already been severely cut back, and there seems to be no scope to cut back anything else without further compromising basic needs. Children are not being sent to school because the cost of transport and fees are too expensive. The local health clinic provides free initial consultations and some drugs, but this group would not be able to afford any further treatment.
The picture from this farm applies to the situation prior to March 31st. However, the situation can only have worsened since then as the farm has now ceased operations. At best, the "employed" group will now face similar problems to the unemployed, assuming that they are still able to squat on the farm. The worst case scenario would be that they are forced off the land, and lose their homes and their livelihoods. In spite of the imminence of the farm closure at the time this assessment was carried out, the workers were at a loss when asked what their future plans were. Approximately 10% of the workers have been officially resettled on the farm, but the others interviewed had no clear idea of what they would do once the farm closed.
Footnotes:
- See SC UK (2001) for further discussion of this in relation to informal mining communities.
- Anecdotal evidence in recent months would suggest that labourers are increasingly preferring to be paid in-kind rather than in cash, where possible. The reason given for this is typically that it is easier to avoid the effects of inflation, particularly food and fuel (transport) price increases, by negotiating a fixed payment in-kind rather than trying to re-negotiate cash wages upwards.
|
|
Related documents