DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to my fiancé, my mother, my sisters and my brother.

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the Lord Almighty for blessing me with the gift of life and for making it
possible for me to undertake this research successfully.

I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr Zanamwe who assisted me from the beginning
of the project through to the end with his scholarly guidance and support. My thanks go to the
residents of Goromonzi Community where the research was conducted and to all who cooperated
during the interviews. My profound gratitude goes to my fiancé Simbarashe Mahachi, my mother
Mrs. Marume, my brother and my sisters who were there to offer support, encouragement and
assistance. This research is dedicated to you. I also thank my friends who always encouraged and
believed in me. I would also want to extend my gratitude to Goromonzi community. Without their
assistance and patience this research would not have been possible

Thank you all.

2
ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the contribution of the Fast Track Land Reform Program to the growth
and development of administrative centers through livelihoods and livelihood strategies based on
the case study of Goromonzi. The research seeks to establish the role played by the Fast Track Land
Reform Programme in the growth of Goromonzi community through livelihood strategies, to
ascertain the various livelihood strategies in the community and to determine policies driving socio-
ecological processes of livelihood strategies. A total of 54 households were selected from A2
Resettled Farmers, A1 Resettled Farmers, Communal Residents and Growth Point Residents.
Stratified random sampling and selection was used to identify the households to be researched. Data
was collected through interviews, questionnaires, group discussions and observation guides.

The results of the research show how Goromonzi community has developed since the start of the
Fast Track Land Reform Programme through agriculture and migration as livelihood strategies. The
Fast Tract Land Reform Programme began in July of 2000. It saw the redistribution of land from
white commercial farmers to the indigenous people. The land was allocated in holdings of A1 and
A2 plots. The A1 models were meant to decongest the rural areas whilst the A2 models were meant
to create indigenous commercial farmers. Agriculture has intensified since 2000 in order to regain
the past agricultural productivity of the nation. Agricultural intensification is perceived as a means
of enhancing the performance of the food system that is increasing output of yields per unit area by
increasing labour or capital on a piece of land, leading to more food and lower food prices. As the
resettled and communal farmers engaged more in subsistence farming, intensive subsistence
farming and commercial farming, their livelihoods transformed for the better. This in turn has
helped the growth and development of Goromonzi through population growth, local governance,
infrastructure development and transport.

3
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION....................................................................................................................................................1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................................3

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………………4

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES..................................................................................................................7

ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH....................................................................................9

1.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................9

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA......................................................................................................10

1.4 JUSTIFICATION...................................................................................................................................13

1.5 AIM OF THE STUDY...........................................................................................................................13

1.5.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................14

2.1 THE FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME IN ZIMBABWE...........................................14

2.2 FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME IN GOROMOMZI................................................17

2.3 LIVELIHOODS AND STRATEGIES...................................................................................................18

2.4 AGRICULTURE AND LIVELIHOODS...............................................................................................20

CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................................23

3.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................23

3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................23

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS AND METHODOLOGY.....................................................................24

3.4 SAMPLING SELECTION.....................................................................................................................24

3.5 CHALLENGES FACED IN THE FIELD..............................................................................................25

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.......................................................................26

4.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................26

4.2 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS...................................................26

5
 i) Age of the Respondents.................................................................................................................26

ii) Marital Status and Gender...........................................................................................................28

iii) Family Size....................................................................................................................................30

iv) Education......................................................................................................................................31

v) Occupation....................................................................................................................................33

4.3 LAND SIZE, LAND ACQUISTION AND HOUSING.........................................................................35

i) Size of Land Holdings...................................................................................................................35

ii) Year of Acquisition of Plots..........................................................................................................38

iii) Means of Acquisition....................................................................................................................39

iv) Type of Housing............................................................................................................................41

v) Residency Status...........................................................................................................................43

4.4 LIVELIHOODS AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES..........................................................................44

i) Livelihood Strategies....................................................................................................................44

ii) Agricultural Production................................................................................................................46

iii) Transformation of Livelihood Strategies......................................................................................50

4.5 OBSERVATION GUIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GOROMONZI................................................51

i) Land cover....................................................................................................................................51

ii) Land use........................................................................................................................................52

iii) Socio-economic development........................................................................................................52

iv) Local governance..........................................................................................................................53

v) Population.....................................................................................................................................53

vi) Infrastructure................................................................................................................................53

vii) Transport......................................................................................................................................54

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION......................................................................................56

5.1 CONTRIBUTION OF THE FTLRP TO THE GROWTH OF GOROMONZI AS AN

ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE THROUGH LIVELIHOODS...................................................................56

5.2 POLICIES DRIVING SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES..............................................................60

5.3 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................62

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................63

6
APPENDIX I....................................................................................................................................................67

APPENDIX II...................................................................................................................................................71

APPENDIX III..................................................................................................................................................73

APPENDIX IV.................................................................................................................................................75

7
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 Map of Goromonzi District in Zimbabwe

Figure 2 Map of Study Area in Goromonzi Community

Figure 3 Ages of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Figure 4 Marital Statuses of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Figure 5 Year of Acquisition of A1 and A2 Plots in Goromonzi Community

Figure 6 Means of Acquisition of Plots and Stands in Goromonzi Community

Figure 7 Percentage of Respondents Who Own Other Residential Stands/houses

Figure 8 Type of Agriculture Practised in Goromonzi Community

Table 1 Level of Education of Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Table 2 Occupation of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Table 3 Size of Landholdings for Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Table 4 Type of Housing for Residents in Goromonzi Community

Table 5 Crop Production in Goromonzi Community

Table 6 Livestock owned by farmers in Goromonzi Community

Table 7 Agricultural assets owned by farmers in Goromonzi Community

8
ABBREVIATIONS

A2RF A2 Resettled farmers

A1RF A1 Resettled Farmers

ADA Agriculture Development Authority

AGRITEX Agricultural Research and Extension Services

AREX Agricultural Extension Services

DDF District Development Fund

DLC District Land Committee

EMA Environmental Management Authority

FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform Programme

GoZ Government of Zimbabwe

LRP Land Reform Programme

ZESA Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority

ZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority

ZRP Zimbabwe Republic Police

9
10
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In 1980 Zimbabwe inherited a highly skewed pattern of land distribution due to the disintegration
of the white settlers and local people. White large-scale commercial farmers who were the minority
owned and farmed most of the fertile agricultural land in Zimbabwe. The majority of the local
people farmed in the lower rainfall and poorer infertile soil areas where they had been forced to live
as a result of the Land Apportionment Act of 1930. The issue of access to land was therefore a
major rallying point that led to the war of Liberation (Government of Zimbabwe, 2013). In the
1980s the government launched a Land Reform Programme address these issues but it was
unsuccessful with the local people. Due to the people’s rejection of the draft constitution regarding
land, the government launched the ‘fast track’ land reform programme in the early 2000s. The
launch of the Fast Track Reform Programme (FTLRP) was accompanied by numerous changes to
land legislation. The changes extended the grounds for compulsory acquisition of land with no
compensation. This resulted in 10.8 million hectares of commercial farmland gazetted for
acquisition (Moyo, 2004).

According to The Zimbabwe Institute (2007), the land was distributed as large farms and small land
holdings of A1 and A2 sizes. Many new A2 and A1 farmers had no farming experience. The A2
farmers usually came during the weekend as they had to go to work during the week in the cities. A
large number of A1 farmers were of rural based people who had been relocated to these new
landholdings. This was the case in Goromonzi community. Goromonzi was previously
predominated by large commercial white-owned farms. These farms stretched out around the
Goromonzi District (GRDC, 2000). Both the A1 and A2 farmers in Goromonzi because they were
inexperienced and lacked agricultural knowledge and proper equipment, resorted to pure
subsistence farming. This was the form of agriculture that was easy and one they were accustomed
to in their rural areas. It provided them with a strategy for their livelihood.

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living.
Livelihood strategies are the combination of activities that people choose to undertake in order to

11
achieve their livelihood goals. They include productive activities, investment strategies and
reproductive choices (Scoones, 1998). The choice of strategies is a process were people combine
activities to meet their changing needs. For example, in farming households, activities are not
necessarily confined to agriculture but often include non-farm activities in order to diversify income
and meet household needs (Campbell, 2002) A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide
sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation (Mushonga, 2009).

Many rural communities in Zimbabwe have agriculture as their livelihood. They practice
subsistence agriculture. Subsistence agriculture is self-sufficiency farming in which the farmers
focus on growing enough food to feed themselves and their families. The output is mostly for local
requirements with little or no surplus for trade (Waters, 2007). Subsistence agriculture relies less on
modern technology and chemicals and more on hand tools like hoes and knowledge passed from
one generation to the next as it is a traditional method of farming. As a result it is focused more on
crop than livestock production. Over the years in growing communities, subsistence farming
develops into intensive subsistence farming through government funding and loans and knowledge
to achieve sufficiency.

Intensive subsistence agriculture is a method of agriculture where farmers get more food per acre
compared to other subsistence farming methods. This allows farmers to make the most of each
harvest (Schneider and Gugerty, 2011). Intensive farming is more common in high populous
societies where the demand for food is higher. The farmers apply various cultivation techniques and
methods to get the most yields out of their land. One such method is the use of commercially
produced fertilizer to ensure that crops get all the nutrients they need. In addition, farmers rely on
pesticides and herbicides to prevent or control the threat brought by pests and weeds to their crops.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme that occurred in Zimbabwe in the early 2000s shaped the
growth of many communities in Zimbabwe through the transformation and diversification of
livelihood strategies. One such area is Goromonzi community. The study was carried out in the
Goromonzi. The community is in the Goromonzi District which is one of the four districts that

12
share a boundary with Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe. It serves as a trading centre for
commercial, communal and co-operative farms. It is the administrative centre for the Chinyika
communal land and Goromonzi District. Goromonzi District is one of nine districts in Mashonaland
East Province and it is largely rural. Its geographical location is bordered by Marondera to the east,
Harare to the west, Manyame to the south, and Murehwa and Domboshava to the north. It is a
district located around 32 kilometres southeast of the country’s capital Harare. Due to its proximity
to Harare, Goromonzi District enjoys and absorbs the effects of urban development.

Goromonzi has a range of livelihood strategies, agriculture being the main one, which has led to the
growth of this administrative centre. The community has developed from infrastructure like roads,
shops, clinics and electricity supply. It has also grown in terms of population and there have been
major changes in the land use and land cover. All of this has transformed Goromonzi community
from its previous status as predominantly white commercial farmlands and an administrative centre
for the Goromonzi District to indigenously owned A1 plots and A2 commercial farms. However
other factors have also contributed to the transformation of Goromonzi community into an
administrative centre. Figures 1 and 2 below show the maps of the study area.

Source: Map hill, 2016

Figure 1 Map of Goromonzi District in Zimbabwe

13
Figure 2 Map of Study Area in Goromonzi Community

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The community of Goromonzi has seen a rapid transformation in terms of growth and development
in the last sixteen years. The main economic activity and livelihood provision is agriculture that is
commercial farming, intensive subsistence farming and small scale animal husbandry. Goromonzi
in the past has always been mainly commercial farmlands in addition to being an administrative
centre for the Goromonzi District. Since the change in land ownership in 2000 during the Fast
Track Land Reform Programme Goromonzi as an administrative centre has significantly gone
through changes like decrease in agricultural production and a steady rise in the last ten years. Other
changes include infrastructure, population and local governance. There are gaps in understanding
how the Fast Track Land Reform Programme contributed to these changes in Goromonzi. There is
not much literature and research done on this phenomenon. It is on this basis that further research
was conducted to fill in the knowledge gaps

14
1.4 JUSTIFICATION

The contribution of agriculture to the growth of communities, villages and towns is well
documented in literature ( Christiansen et al, 2011 ; Diao et al, 2007). However the contribution of
the Fast Track Land Reform Programme through livelihoods in the growth of administrative centres
had not been well researched in Zimbabwe. This study therefore determines the role the Land
Reform Programme has played in the transformation and development of Goromonzi community
through livelihood diversification and transformation. The research findings enable policy makers
to formulate legislation for growing communities and district centres and relating to livelihood
strategies in these areas. The research also helps other researchers studying the development of
administrative centres from the FTLRP.

1.5 AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme
in the development of the community of Goromonzi through the transformation and diversification
of livelihood strategies.

1.5.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was met by the following specific objectives which were to:

 Ascertain the role played by the Fast Track Land Reform Programme in the
development of Goromonzi through livelihood strategies
 Determine the various livelihood strategies in the community
 Examine policies driving socio-ecological processes of livelihood strategies

15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 THE FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME IN ZIMBABWE

In July 2000 the GoZ launched the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). It was
continuation of the land reform and resettlement program that the GoZ had begun in the 1980s. The
acquisition of land was mostly from white commercial farms, private companies and absentee
landlords. There was a major decline in agricultural output and economic activity as a result of this
program (Campbell 2008, Bond 2008). The FTLRP sought to address the distorted land distribution
in Zimbabwe that had been innate at independence in 1980. The white large-scale commercial
farms in Zimbabwe occupied 45 percent of all the agricultural land most of which was found in the
most agriculturally productive areas. (Scoones et al, 2010) The indigenous people on the other
hand, although they were the majority, constituted the small infertile and rain poor communal lands.
The right to tenure on these communal lands was vested in the state and the rights to the land were
allocated to a male individual by a chief. This distorted distribution of land in Zimbabwe led the
GoZ to adopt a land reform and a resettlement program aimed on land acquisition and redistribution
(Moyo, 2006).

The main objectives of the fast track programme were to speed up the identification of not less than
5million hectares of land for compulsory acquisition for resettlement, to accelerate the planning and
demarcation of acquired land and settler emplacement on this land, and to provide limited basic
infrastructure and farmer support services (Government of Zimbabwe 2000; Moyo 2006). Other
objectives were to ensure food security, decongest communal areas, decrease pressure on land and
ease existing political pressure. The objectives of the fast track land reform were to be implemented
by acquiring 2.1 million hectares of farm land which had previously been designated and contested
by white commercial farmers. Pursuing this action, other acquisitions were to follow, involving the
redistribution of up to 5 million hectares over a period of between 3 and 5 years (Moyo, 2013).
Another strategy was to acquire for resettlement 125 000 hectares per province and resettle 30 000
families on the land.

16
The land under the FTLRP was put into two categories. These were A1 and A2 land holdings. The
A2 farms were a lot bigger and commercially-focused. The A2 farms comprised small, medium and
large-scale commercial farms intended to create a cadre of black commercial farmers. They were
either taken over by one resettled farmer as a complete unit or subdivided into smaller units
amongst a number of A2 farmers. The A1 farms were the main subsistence farms which were
divided into a large number of arable units often around 6 hectares per household along with a
homestead and common grazing land (AIAS, 2009). The A1 farms were meant to decongest
communal areas and they targeted at farmers in communal areas who did not have land. This model
was based on the premise that peasants produced mainly for subsistence according to communal
area organisation.

The process of the land reform had been slow since it began. In addition the Lancaster House
Constitution barred a significant land reform programme. The Constitution compelled GoZ to
acquire land only on a willing seller willing buyer basis during the first 10 years after independence
(Shaw, 2003). There was no international support to fund the land acquisition and resettlement
program. .In some cases land was offered to Government, however it was expensive. The land
offers were also marginal and mostly occurred in pockets around the country. All of this made it
difficult to achieve an organized and structured land reform program. As a result the land supply
failed to meet the high demand for land. In an effort to accelerate the process, GoZ passed the Land
Acquisition Act of 1992. This legal instrument had the effect of freeing Government from the
willing seller/willing buyer clause of the Lancaster House Constitution (Government of Zimbabwe,
1996).

This effort was fruitless as the process still remained slow and cumbersome. Consequently it
became expensive mainly because the commercial farmers resisted the land occupations. For
example, when Government designated 1471 farms for compulsory acquisition in December 1997 a
total of 1393 objections were received. The Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) representing white
farmers was largely opposed to meaningful land redistribution (Shaw, 2003). In the year 1997, the
GoZ initiated a process of drastic land reform. This process was premised on widespread obligatory
land acquisition and redistribution. Around 5 million hectares of land was targeted for transfer.
Between the years 1980 and 1990 GoZ managed to attain only 3.5 million hectares of land. They
were also only able to resettle 71 000 communal households according to Marongwe (2009).
However, the communal areas were still overcrowded, overstocked and overgrazed. Thus for the

17
mass of local people residing in rural and communal areas, there had been no considerable changes
in accessing quality land and in improving their agrarian livelihoods.

This led to pressure escalating on Government to speed up the land reform programme. The local
indigenous people were not happy with the pace of land redistribution. Their response was to bring
pressure on the Government by resorting to vigorous protests and land occupations. For example
the villagers in Svosve communal areas in June 1998 occupied Igava farm vowing to stay on until
Government had made a written undertaking to resettle them (Scoones et al, 2010). The villagers
stated a number of reasons for this behaviour. They cited poor soils and congestion as factors that
had led them to occupy the white farms adjacent to their villages. Similar and extensive occupations
of white farms followed around the country. The GoZ ordered the people to withdraw from the
white farms. The villagers reluctantly complied with the Government’s order for departure from the
occupied farms.

The year 1999 saw a government appointed commission which was tasked with drafting of a radical
new constitution which had provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land for resettlement and
for providing compensation for acquired farms on the former colonial power (GoZ, 2000). The
government was no longer obliged to pay compensation for the acquired land except for
infrastructural improvements. A referendum was held in February 2000 to allow people either to
reject or accept the drafted constitution. The constitution was rejected. Shortly after the results to
the referendum were announced, the war veterans began invading white-owned farms in
unprompted demonstrations which soon had the support of the government according to (Chitsike,
2003). In the previous couple of years that is 1998 and 1999, irregular invasions of commercial
farms by communal and other farmers took place, which the ZANU-PF government on the whole
denounced as illegal. It was against the background of the illegal land occupations by the local
indigenous people; the absence of international support for land reform; the rejection of the 2000
Draft Constitution and the continued legal challenges by the white commercial farmers, that GoZ
embarked on the Fast Track Land Reform Program (GoZ, 2000).

After the June 2000 elections, the President appointed a War Cabinet which was to see the
completion of the land reform program. A comprehensive and holistic approach towards acquisition
of commercial farms followed. The Government announced the official launch of the FTLRP in
July 2000. The Programme was designed to be undertaken in an accelerated manner and with
reliance on domestic resources. The Programme was a fundamental departure from previous

18
philosophy, practices and procedures of acquiring land and resettling people (Moyo et al, 2009).
The land that was targeted for transfer soon shifted from 5 million to 10 million hectares by the year
2001. The announcement was meant to formalise and permit the government to normalize the
chaotic land occupations. This was done through an enactment of a series of legislation. The
Government enacted the Rural Land Occupiers (Protection against Eviction) Act (2001) which
“forced’ white commercial farmers to either abandon their land or to co-exist with the land
occupiers ( Masiiwa, 2004).

The existing owners were given a time limit according to a revised Land Acquisition Act to vacate
the land. This process was accompanied by widespread land occupations led by war veterans,
reaching around 1000 large scale commercial farms occupied in 2000. Initially this led to arrests
and detentions of occupiers. However, these were soon legitimised, regularised and normalised by
the government on the guise of the FTLRP. According to Richardson (2004) at first, white farmers
were told to co-exist with the newly emerging settlers but it became clear that these farmers were to
be removed and their farms taken over completely by the settlers. Ultimately more than 6000 farms
were gazetted for acquisition. The government allocated approximately 135 000 households and
small to medium commercial farmers by mid-2003. As of the year 2011, 237,858 Zimbabwean
households have been provided with access to land under the programme. A total of 10,816,886
hectares have been acquired since 2000, compared to the 3,498,444 purchased from voluntary
sellers between 1980 and 1998 (Robertson, 2011).

2.2 FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME IN GOROMOMZI

The Goromonzi Rural District Council (2000) notes that Goromonzi covers an area totalling
approximately 2,459 square kilometres or 254,072 hectares. In 1998 20 large scale commercial
farms were invaded by peasants from Chikwakwa communal areas (Sadomba, 2008). The police
however evicted the villagers from the farms. Extensive land occupations resumed in Goromonzi
District in 2000 after the rejection of the Draft Constitution in a referendum. According to
Marongwe (2008) by March 2000, at least 15 large scale commercial farms had been occupied. Out
of the 257 large scale commercial farms in Goromonzi District, 243 were gazetted for resettlement
Thus the FTLRP altered land tenure systems. There was a change from private land holdings to
state land. There was also a change in ownership patterns from white commercial farmers to local

19
indigenous people. During the FTLRP, most urban dwellers in Harare and Marondera sought to
access land in Goromonzi district due to its proximity to the capital.

2.3 LIVELIHOODS AND STRATEGIES

A livelihood is the different approaches in which households make ends meet from annually and
how they survive through difficult times. Chambers and Conway (1992) define livelihoods as the
methods by which people meet their needs or gain a living. A livelihood is a set of flows of income,
from hired employment, self employment, remittances or from a seasonally and annually variable
combination of all these. Livelihood strategies are the mixture of activities that people engage in
order to attain their livelihood goals. In farming households, activities are not confined to
agriculture but also include non-farm activities (Campbell et al, 2002).

In Africa, most rural households are involved in agricultural activities as their main source of
livelihood. However, they also engage in other income generating activities to supplement their
main source of income. Many rural people have over the years diversified their productive activities
to include a range of other productive areas (Barrett et al., 2001). Livelihood diversification is
pursued for reasons including from a desire to accumulate, invest and the need to spread risk or
maintain incomes, to a requirement to adapt to survive in eroding circumstances.

According to Ellis (2000), rural livelihood strategies can be placed under two categories that is
strategies based on natural resources and the second the non-natural-based activities. Rural farmers
may diversify by changing the composition of what they produce. For example the farmers may
increase the number of crops or change to crop and livestock production (Hussein and Nelson,
1998). Trade of waged labour and self-employment on small can also be another strategy for rural
farmers to diversify their livelihoods. The income of these households comes from a range of
sources. These include farming both cash crops for sale and crops for subsistence, engaging in
making of local crafts, in trade and livestock keeping. Migration from one area to another in search
of employment is another diversified livelihood strategy.

Being able to access assets is a major influence on rural people’s choice of livelihood strategies. In
addition the policies that affect their ability to use these assets to achieve positive livelihood

20
outcomes also plays a role (Murray, 2002). Rural livelihoods diversification and intensification has
lead to integration and transformation (Christiansen et al, 2011). Old, new and improved livelihood
strategies have been integrated to enhance livelihoods. This integration is important in transforming
rural livelihoods. Rural people are able to get opportunities from all angles. Formally unknown
individuals or areas become known through transformation. This is done through the exchange of
knowledge and skills which favour progress. There is an interlock which leads to transformation in
integration. It promotes industrialization that is infrastructural development and technological
progress and it promotes economic growth and poverty reduction through increased yield and
income.

The potential for a household to diversify is favourable for households that are at or below the
poverty line. When these households have alternative livelihood strategies this makes a significant
difference between modestly practical livelihoods and destitution. Families that are well of are more
able to diversify than families that are poor in rural areas. Total income and the share of income
derived from non-farm sources are often positively correlated (Malleson, 2008). Diversification
contributes positively to livelihood sustainability. According to Davidova et al (2009) diverse
portfolio of activities contributes to the sustainability of a rural livelihood because it improves its
long-run resilience in the face of adverse trends or sudden shocks.

Similarly both individual and household livelihoods correspond with larger social and economic
groupings up to the national level. When there is an increase in diversity there becomes greater
chances means because of the numerous possibilities that can be substituted. This can be between
opportunities that are in decline and those that are expanding. There are many positive impacts of
diversification. These include transformation, reduced risk, seasonality, employment, credit and
asset effects. Seasonality causes highs and lows in labour exploitation on the farm. This therefore
creates food uncertainty due to the divergence between the irregular farm income streams and
continuous utilization requirements. The effects of seasonality can be reduced by diversification
through utilizing labour and generating alternative sources of income in low periods. For example
rural people needed to be engaging in diversification and intensification to minimize the risk caused
by the drought that occurred in Zimbabwe in 1992 (Frost, 2007).

Cash that is obtained from diversification can be invested or used to improve the quality of assets.
For example, the cash can be used to send children to school or buy farm or household equipment
like a bicycle that can be used to improve future income generating opportunities. Diversification

21
can potentially provide environmental benefits. This is by generating income and assets that are
then invested in recuperating the quality of the natural resources and by providing options that
make time spent in exploiting natural resources less remunerative than time spent doing other
things.

2.4 AGRICULTURE AND LIVELIHOODS

Agriculture is referred to as the discipline of producing crops and livestock from the natural
resources of the earth. The principal aim of agriculture is to produce food in abundance and to
protect the land from deterioration and exploitation (Schneider and Gugerty, 2011). Agriculture is
the same with farming. This is the production of food for people, fodder for animals and other
industrial raw materials for manufacturing. Agriculture includes horticulture, animal husbandry
farming and crop production. It also involves the use of land for grazing, woodlands, market
gardens and nursery grounds. It is also defined as determined effort through which elements in
nature are harnessed to produce plants and animals for human need. According to Diao et al (2007),
it depends on the growth and development of selected plants and animals within the local
environment through a biological process.

i. Branches of Agriculture

One branch of agriculture is crop production. It deals with the production of a variety of crops that
is food crops for human consumption, fodder crops for animal consumption, fibre crops and oil
seeds. Crop production includes agronomy, soil science, entomology, pathology and microbiology.
The aim of crop production is to have enhanced food production and have knowledge on how to
control weeds, pests and diseases. Horticulture is another branch of agriculture that deals with the
production of flowers, fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants, spices, condiments and beverages.
Agricultural engineering aims at the production of modified farm equipment to facilitate proper
animal husbandry and crop production (Hoang, 2011). Forestry deals with the production of large
scale cultivation of perennial trees for wood, timber, rubber and also for raw materials for
industries. Animal husbandry is also a branch of agriculture. This is the production of various types
of livestock for food and work. Husbandry is common for both crop and animals. The objective is
to get maximum output by feeding and rearing.

22
 ii. Agriculture and Livelihoods in Zimbabwe

Agricultural production plays a catalytic role in the county’s economy because it does not only
form the basis livelihoods of almost 70% of the population especially in communal areas, but is
also linked to economic growth. Agricultural outputs impact directly on key sectors of the economy
including manufacturing, mining, construction, finance and others (Robertson, 2011). Zimbabwe’s
agricultural sector emerged from a prolonged period of structural change. This was in the context of
shifts in the social, political and economic environments particularly shifts in the scale of operations
and the composition of the farming sector since 2000 that is, at the start of the Fast Track Land
Reform Programme (Anseeuw et al, 2012).

The principal crops produced in the Zimbabwe are maize, cotton, sugar, groundnuts, beans and cow
peas. The major commercial crops which generate cash income include tobacco, cut-flowers, raw
sugar cane, cotton, chilled vegetables, coffee, fruit and tea (GoZ, 2013). Ever since the FTLRP
started there has been a great need to increase agricultural production because Zimbabwe inherited
a thriving agro-based economy upon independence in 1980 and that previous state needs to be
reached again. This can be done through agricultural intensification.

Agricultural intensification has been defined as increased average inputs of labour or capital on a
smallholding, either cultivated land alone, or on cultivated grazing land, for the purposes of
increasing the value of output per hectare (Tiffen et al, 1994). Agricultural intensification generally
focuses on the increased production of crops and agricultural products best suiting the agro-
ecological conditions of the region and the existing market outlets. Intensification involves the
replacement of traditional crops and agricultural commodities with new high yield varieties,
requiring improved technology (Dixon et al 2001). The Green Revolution success in increasing
yields suggests that agricultural intensification is the solution to make small farmers livelihood
strategies capable to cope with population growth, market economy, socio-cultural change and
modernization of rural societies at large.

Strategic significance of intensification and diversification on agriculture as a livelihood takes place

when rural producers change the composition of agricultural products they produce. Not only can
this integration help farmers to maintain fertility through the incorporation of animal litter into soil,

23
but the animals themselves may provide other products as well. All of this helps to build up or
maintain agricultural production and reduce risk thereby transforming rural people’s quality of life
according to Marsh (2003). Intercropping and sustainable agricultural practices help farmers to
spread risk, maintain and augment soil productivity and incomes through increasing biological
diversity. According to Murray (2002), livelihood diversification via agricultural means is also very
important because agriculture is an important source of income for a substantial number of rural and
communal households. In addition it can function as an important strategy for poverty alleviation
and social integration of disadvantaged groups for example HIV/AIDS-affected households,
disabled people, female-headed households with children, elderly people without pensions and the
jobless youth (Mandaza, 2009; Mushonga and Scoones, 2012).

24
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The chapter focuses on the research design, the sampling procedure and the data collection tools
that were used to gather relevant information. The design is provided to determine the final product
and to detail the plan for the research undertakings that relate to the results of the required data
collection. Selection of the correct research methodology and the application of an efficient
research design make the collection of relative data and critical analysis of the data mandatory.

3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Fraenkel and Wallen, (1996) define a research method as a systematic and orderly approach taken
towards the collection of data so that information can be obtained from the data. Research
methodology is defined by Babbie et al., (2001) as the methods, techniques, and procedures that are
employed in the process of implementing the research design or research plan, as well as the
underlying principles and assumptions that underlie their use. The research methodology exists to
direct the research implementation. Research methodology serves as the medium to ensure that the
research plan/design is carried out in line with the research objectives. The study methodology
consisted of a combination of collection and synthesis of existing country level literature.

For this study, a qualitative methodology was used. The research was carried out in Goromonzi
community. A total of 54 households were selected as the sample. The data for this study was
collected through qualitative methods obtained from primary and secondary data sources. A
descriptive survey in the form of questionnaires and guides was selected because it provided an
account of the characteristics, for example opinions, beliefs and knowledge of a particular
individual, situation or group.

25
3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS AND METHODOLOGY

Data collection is an important aspect of any type of research study. In carrying out this study,
the researcher used various data gathering instruments such as: documentary analysis,
questionnaires and surveys. Primary data was collected through questionnaires and interviews with
household heads, focused group discussions and observation. Secondary data sources included
content analysis of documents and other literature. Data was analysed using SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Scientists.) The research identified both farm and non-farming livelihood
strategies adopted in the community.

The researcher travelled to Goromonzi on a weekly basis in order to collect data. Fifty for
households were interviewed using questionnaires. There were three types of questionnaires which
covered the four categories of respondents. Local people in communities and at the growth point
were interviewed for the focused group discussions. They answered questions about the FTLRP and
their community. The researcher had an observation guide which was used to ascertain the level of
growth that occurred in Goromonzi.

3.4 SAMPLING SELECTION

A sample is a part of the whole study. Mouton (2002) defines a sample as a group of chosen people
from a large population with the aim of collecting data of the total population. A population is
defined as a group of individuals, objects or items with at least one common characteristic that can
be studied. Subjects included in the population sample were selected from 4 categories. The first
category was the A1 resettled farmers (A1-RF), the second category was the A2 resettled farmers
(A2-RF), the third category was the communal residents (CR) and the lastly there was the growth
point residents (GPR). Thirty households were selected from the A1RF and GPR whilst twenty four
from the A2RF and CR to make a total of fifty four households. This number of households was
selected due to the ratio of the total households in the community. It constituted 30% of the total

26
population. Stratified random sampling was used to administer the questionnaires and for
interviews. The researcher travelled to the research area from Harare in order to conduct the
interviews, observations and FGDs. Three (3) weeks was dedicated to each category to make a total
of nine (9) weeks for data collection.

3.5 CHALLENGES FACED IN THE FIELD

The researcher encountered many challenges during the study in the field. The challenges were both
natural and human caused. The natural challenge in the field that the researcher faced was weather
changes. Due to the fact that the research was done in the rainy season, it was difficult to conduct
the research on a daily basis. There were heavy rains which hindered any movement and these rains
would last the whole afternoon. This caused a lot of delays in the study as the research could only
be conducted from mid-morning to late afternoons so as not to disturb the community residents in
their day to day routines. Even on days when it did not rain it was difficult to maneuver through the
villages because of mud from previous rains. Another challenge came in the form of the distribution
and location of the households to be sampled. Unlike in urban areas there were no formal roads
leading into the villages. The researcher had to walk along paths passing through people’s plots and
asking for permission to pass. The research ended up taking more time than was scheduled for the
research.

There were also human challenges. Some of the respondents were not willing to be interviewed.
They did not want their privacy to be invaded. The researcher ended up spending more time looking
for more willing participants. Another challenge arose when the willing respondents expected
something in return for their services. Some respondents thought the research was donor funded and
thus they expected first preference when goods were delivered to the community. The researcher
had to explain that the study was purely for educational purposes and it was not donor funded. This
in turn resulted in the people being less willing to participate.

27
28
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains the data collected during the research in Goromonzi community and the
analysis of the data. The chapter also focuses on what the results reveal about the role played by the
Fast Track Land Reform Programme in the development of Goromonzi Community into an
administrative centre for Goromonzi District. Data was collected through questionnaires, FDGs and
observation guides. The data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel.

4.2 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS

In total fifty four (54) respondents were interviewed from Goromonzi. Data on the background
characteristics of the respondents was collected from four population samples in Goromonzi namely
the A1 resettled farmers (A1RF), A2 resettled farmers (A2RF), Communal Residents (CR) and
lastly the Growth Point Residents (GPR). The respondents from all four groups had to answer
questions from a questionnaire. The first section was the demographic characteristics of the
respondents. From analyzing demographic data across the four sampled groups the researcher was
able to observe the family dynamics and the growth of population in Goromonzi Community
through the years since the Fast Track Land Reform Programme started up to 2017.

i) Age of the Respondents

Data was collected on the ages of the respondents. The respondents’ age was grouped into 7
categories with 5 year interval as shown in Figure 3 below. These were:
41-45 years, 46-50 years,

51-55 years, 56-60 years,

61-65 years, 66-70 years and 70 + years

29
 Bar graph for ages of the respondents
8
A2
7 Farmers
6 A1
Farmers
5
Respondents

Communal
4 residents
3 Growth
point res-
2
idents
1

0
41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71+
Age groups

Figure 3 .Ages of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Twelve respondents out the total respondents across the 4 groups of 54 were interviewed from the
A2 resettled farmers. (A2RF). Most of the respondents (7) were in the 56-60 age groups. The age
group with no respondents were in the 41-45; 61-65 and 51-55 age groups. The FTLRP was spear-
headed by war veterans and other disgruntled Zimbabweans who were not happy with the land
distributions at the time. These people ranged in age from the late thirties to the mid forties.
Seventeen years later these people are now in their mid fifties to early sixties. This is proved to be
the case according to Figure 3 above which shows that most of the respondents are in the 56-60 age
groups.

From the A1 resettled farmers 15 respondents were interviewed. Most of the respondents (8) were
in the 56-60 age groups. The least respondents were in the 41-45 and 61-65 age groups which all
have one respondent each. The A1RF as with the A2RF were also involved in the FTLRP of the
early 2000s. This is also proved to be the case according to Figure 3 above which shows that most
of the respondents are in the 56-60 age groups.

Twelve respondents were interviewed from the communal residents. These were neither A1RF nor
A2RF. They are people who have lived in Goromonzi Community and consider it their traditional
rural area. Data was collected on the age of the respondents as shown in Figure 3 above. The

30
majority of the respondents are in their fifties to seventies. This reveals just how long they have
been living in Goromonzi as their communal or traditional rural area. Very few residents (3) are
above the age of 60. The rest of the respondents are below the age of 55. The young residents in
their forties, their land was given them to by their forefathers through inheritance.

The last group that was sampled was the Growth Point Residents (GPR). A total of fifteen
households were sampled. Most of the sampled residents, that are 5 residents, were in the 46-50
years age group. They represented 33.3% of the total population. The 51-55 age groups and the 56-
60 age groups both had four (4) respondents each. Each group represented 26.7% of the sample.
These two groups represent the people who during the first Land Reform Program did not want to
engage in taking over white commercial farms. They were seeking land in the form of residential
stands in growth point areas like Goromonzi. The respondents in this group are much younger than
the other three sampled groups.

ii) Marital Status and Gender

Data was collected on the marital status and gender of the respondents. Marital statuses and gender
are relevant in observing the development of communities as it shows the structure of families. This
is shown by the head of houses in each family. If a respondent was widowed it meant that the
woman automatically became the head of the house and was responsible for all decision making.
The marital statuses and gender in this research showed a full picture of the family dynamics.
Figure 4 below shows the marital status of the residents in Goromonzi.

31
 16
14
12
10
8
Frequency

6 Single
4
2 Divorced
0
s s s ts Widowed
er er e nt en
rm rm sid is d
Fa Fa re r e
A2 A1 al i nt
un po
m h
m wt
Co ro
G

Respondents

Figure 4 Marital Statuses of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

Data was collected on the gender and marital status of the A2RF. Four of the respondents (33.3%)
were female. Coincidentally all four females were widowed. The remaining eight respondents
(66.7%) were all male and were married as shown in Figure 4 above. A2 families are mostly headed
by males except for the four plots that have widows. Most of the A2RF have made their plots their
homes and they are raising their families there.

Eighty percent of the A1RF (12) were married. This shows how most of the sampled households
were headed by married people. When people were resettled to Goromonzi they came as families,
that is, husband, wife and children. They represent the majority of the A1RFs and this reveals how
intact the families are. The researcher also concluded that the A1 plots have now become home to
these people as they are raising their families there. Two of the respondents (13.3%) were widowed.
Originally these two women had settled in Goromonzi with their husbands but they passed on. Only
one respondent was divorced (6.7%). Of the 15 respondents, 13 of them were males whilst 2 of
them were female.

The marital status of the Communal Residents was also collected. Five out of the twelve
respondents were females. These females were also widowed. The remaining seven (7) respondents
were male and they were married. The percentage of the widowed female respondents was 41.7%

32
whilst the percentage for the married male respondents was 58.3% as shown in Figure 4 above. The
communal residents are becoming fewer and fewer and this is due in part to the FTLRP and to the
growth of Goromonzi into an administrative centre.

Data was collected on the marital status and gender of the Growth point residents as shown in
Figure 4 above. Three out of the fifteen respondents were female. All three of them were widowed.
The remaining twelve (12) respondents were male and they were married. The results show that
most of the GPR are families that settled in Goromonzi either as a permanent home or as a second
home away from town. One reason they could have chosen Goromonzi was due to work
opportunities. The growth of Goromonzi into an administrative centre has seen a lot of people flock
in to find work and a place to live. The percentage of the females who were widowed was 20%. The
percentage of the males who were married was 80%.

iii) Family Size

Population has been on an exponential increase since the early 2000s in Goromonzi Community.
The exponential growth of the population size of Goromonzi Community is greatly observed on A2
plots. Due to the large size of A2 plots, there were various families living o the plots. The families
included the owners of the plot and the employees. The most number of families on a plot was 35
families on the 950ha plot followed by 18 families on the 360ha plot. The plot with the least people
were a 40ha plot with only 3 people living onsite and a 25ha plot with 5 people onsite. These
families could each have more than five members and this further reveals just how many people are
now living in Goromonzi Community since the early 2000s. In the beginning, only the owner s of
the A2 plots lived on the plots but as time has moved on, their employees now live onsite.

Data was also collected on the size of each family for the A1 Resettled Farmers. They were into
three groups of members for each family
i. 1-5 members,
ii. 6-10 members
iii. 11 and above members.
From the A1RF eight of the respondents (53.3%) had families with between 6-10 members. Forty
percent (40%) of the respondents (6) had families with between 1-5 members. Only one family had
more than 11 members (6.7%). The researcher observed that the A1RFs had large families and this
spoke to the population growth in Goromonzi Community. As compared to when these families

33
were first resettled in Goromonzi, they had small families that were in the 1-5members group. This
has contributed to the growth of Goromonzi into an administrative centre.

In terms of family size for the Communal residents, five out the twelve respondents had family
members in the 6-10 range. They represented 41.7% of the sampled population. In the 11+ range
there were four households which were 33.3%. Only three households (25%) had family members
in the 1-5 range. The communal people have also contributed to the increase of population over the
years in Goromonzi. The majority of the families have above 6 family members. This is normal for
rural based settlements across the country. All these people have directly or indirectly contributed to
the development of Goromonzi Community.

Data was also collected on the family size of the Growth Point respondents. Nine out of the fifteen
respondents had family members in the 1-5 range. They represented the majority of the population
percentage at 60%. At forty percent (40%) of the population there were six families who had
members in the 6-10 range. The dynamics of the family sizes of GPR is similar to that found in
urban centers. Unlike the rest of the samples groups (A1RF, A2RF and CR) the family sizes are
much smaller in number. These residents moved to Goromonzi Community in search of jobs and
second homes. The people are mostly from Harare and Marondera originally. There were no
respondents with families who had above 11 members.

iv) Education

Education is an important aspect especially for farmers. Formal education has a bearing on kind of
information accessed, and on the nature of planning at household level and community level (Moyo
et al., 2009). The farmer needs to be able to read and understand how to farm different crops and
take care of different livestock. Agriculture has evolved over the years and there are now new
methods of farming that enabled higher yields. Without education it becomes difficult to grasp
these new methods of farming thus resulting in very low yields.

The education of the A2 and A1 respondents revealed that they have a basic understanding of
farming and are able to learn more and grasp the concepts of agriculture as shown in Table 1 below.
This has greatly helped them to increase their yields through the years from the time they were

34
resettled to Goromonzi up to now. They are now well equipped to learn more from literature,
agricultural extension officers and agricultural institutions.

Table 1 Level of Education of Respondents in Goromonzi Community

A2 A1 COMMUNAL GROWTH
FARMERS FARMERS RESIDENTS POINT
EDUCATION RESIDENTS

Primary 1 (8.3%) 7 (46.7%) 5 (41.7%) 0

Secondary 7 (58.3%) 6 (40%) 7 (58.3%) 4 (26.7%)

Tertiary 4 (33.3%) 1 (6.7%) 0 11 (73.3%)

None 0 1 (6.7%) 0 0

Out of the 12 respondents from the A2RF, 58.3% of them attended both primary and secondary
school. Four respondents (33.3%) attended tertiary school. This shows the high levels of education
among the A2RF. They are able to make wise decisions when it comes to managing their
commercial plots and thus be able to produce more yields. Only one respondent (8.3%) attended
primary school. This respondent is in their 70s thus explaining the low level of education. The
A2RF have a higher level of education as compared to the A1RF. As if by coincidence the A2RF
who have a higher level of education, also have the larger plot sizes. These A2RF have ventured
into commercial agriculture. They supply a required number of tonnes of maize to the Grain
Marketing Board (GMB).The yield per hectare of crops produced by these A2 farmers are
significantly higher.

35
Seven (7) of the respondents (46.7%) attended primary school which makes them the highest
frequency in terms of education. Six (6) respondents (40%) attended both primary school and
secondary school. Only one respondent (6.7%) made it to tertiary level and only one respondent
(6.7%) did not attend school as shown in Table 1 above. A1 resettle farmers have ventured into
intensive subsistence agriculture. The level of education for the A1RFs show how education back in
the day was attained by few people and only up to secondary level as compared to what is
happening now. The male respondents attended primary and secondary schooling only up to Form
4. The only person who made it to tertiary level did so when he was in his 40s age wise.

The respondents from the Communal area were asked to state their level of education. Five male
respondents attended only primary school whist the rest of the seven respondents did not attend
school. There was only one school in Goromonzi Community that is Goromonzi High School
which was built in the early 1940s. The school was a boy’s school for white commercial farmers.
The local population could not attend it. The male respondents who attended primary school did so
while they were living in Rusike. As a result most of the communal residents do not have a basic
education. This was evident to the researcher as the respondents could not answer the
questionnaires on their own and asked the researcher to do so on their behalf.

Data was also collected on the education of the Growth Point respondents as shown in Table 1
above. Eleven respondents had tertiary education. They represented the highest frequency in terms
of education with 73.3%. Four out of the fifteen respondents had secondary school education. Their
percentage was 26.7%. This data related to the growth of the community as mentioned earlier due
to the presence of job opportunities. Government and non-governmental institutions that are in
Goromonzi community were seeking educated people to employ. As a result a lot of educated
people now live in the growth point area of Goromonzi community for proximity to work and also
because it was the space that was allocated by the Goromonzi Kubatana District Council in the mid
1990s.

v) Occupation

The residents of Goromonzi community have different occupations they pursue. These occupations
were grouped into four categories. The respondents were asked to state their occupations as shown
in Table 2 below

36
Table 2 Occupation of the Respondents in Goromonzi Community

A2 A1 COMMUNAL GROWTH
OCCUPATION FARMERS FARMERS RESIDENTS POINT
RESIDENTS

Farmers 10 (83.3%) 10 (66.7%) 0 0

Formal 2 (16.7%) 2 (13.3%) 0 10 (66.7%)

employment

Personal business 0 1 (6.7%) 2 (18.7%) 5 (33.3%)

Free lancers 0 2 (13.3%) 10 (83.3%) 0

In terms of occupation for the A2RF, ten out of the twelve respondents (83.3%) are full time
farmers. The remaining two respondents (16.7%) are formally employed although they are also
farmers. During the early years when the A2 farmers were resettled to Goromonzi, most of them
were formally employed hence the view that they were weekend-farmers. Over the years some of
the A2RF retired from work to be full time farmers. These facts support the notion that A2RF
practise commercial farming through how the majority of the farmers are now full time farmers.
They are fully committed to this type of agriculture and this is shown in the increase of their yields
ever since they were resettled in Goromonzi.

When A1 resettled farmers came to Goromonzi, some of them were civil servants whilst some of
them had some experience in farming. Ten (10) respondents were farmers on their A1 plots. They
had no other job except farming. Their percentage was 66.7%. More yields per hectare are expected
from the A1RF as they are now full time farmers. They now venture into intensive subsistence
farming which not only supplies for their families but they also have a lot of surplus for sale. There
were two (2) formally employed people out of the 15 respondents who engaged in both farming and

37
working in the government or non-governmental organisations. There were also two (2) freelancers
who either employed as part time workers on A1 and A2 plots. Only one responded had his own
personal business which he used to finance capital for crops and livestock on his plot.

In terms of occupation for the Communal Residents, 2 out of the twelve respondents had their own
personal businesses. Their percentage was 41.6%. Ten (10) respondents were freelancers who
engaged in various piece jobs and were also part time employees on A1and A2 plots. The
communal residents are the least educated of all four groups and this is reflected in their
occupations. These free lancers do not have a stable job or source of income. Sometime they work
sometimes they cannot find jobs. The percentage of these respondents was 58.3%. The majority of
these respondents who are freelancers are because of their education as shown in Table 1 above.
These people have low levels of education hence their engagement in freelancing.

Information was also collected on the occupation of the Growth point respondents as shown in
Table 2 above. Ten out of the fifteen respondents were civil servants. These respondents have stable
jobs and incomes due to their high levels of education. Five of the respondents had their personal
businesses which they ran. There were no freelancers out of the fifteen respondents. This data is in
support of the notion that many people resettled to Goromonzi Growth Point in search of
employment. The formal employees work in governmental and non-governmental institutions. The
formal employees represented 66.7% and the respondents with personal businesses represented
33.3%. These people are successful in the sense that they are all either formally employed or they
have businesses like grocery stores, butcheries, salons or bottle stores. This demography has no
farmers as compared to the other sampled groups who either engage in subsistence farming or
commercial farming.

4.3 LAND SIZE, LAND ACQUISTION AND HOUSING

i) Size of Land Holdings

During the FTLRP, the land was distributed as large farms and small land holdings of A1 and A2
sizes. These varied in size through the groups. Data on the size of landholdings for communal
residents and Growth Point Residents was also collected. Table 3 below shows the size of land
holdings for all four sampled groups. The A2 plots were meant to increase the participation of black

38
indigenous farmers in commercial farming. This was to be done through the provision of access to
land and infrastructure on a full cost-recovery basis.

The land was issued on a 99-year lease with the option to purchase. The A2 farms are composed of
individual plots of land that are classified as small-, medium- and large-scale commercial schemes .
Data was collected on the size of the plots across the A2 resettled farmers. The plots were much
larger than the A1 plots. Table 2 below shows the size in hectares of the A2 plots. The majority of
the plots range between 26ha and 75ha. Two plot owners (plot 12 and plot 10) were not A2RF.
Their plots were among the A2 plots but they had not acquired them during the FTLRP. The size of
the A2 plots show how commercial they are as their aim was to empower black entrepreneurs
through access to land and inputs so as to close the gap between the white and black commercial
farmers. The plots are large enough for commercial farming but are small enough so that they are
easy to manage and oversee.

A1 plots were intended to decongest communal areas and were targeted at land-constrained farmers
in communal areas. This model was based on existing communal area organization, whereby
peasants produced mainly for subsistence. Data was collected on the size of the plots across the A1
resettled farmers. The average plot size was 5.5ha. Five respondents (21.7%) had 6ha plots. They
represent the majority of the respondents as shown in Table 4 below. Only two respondents had the
plots with the biggest size. They had 7ha plots. The smallest plots recorded were two 4ha plots.
Two of the respondents did not have any land although they resided among the A1 resettled
farmers. They only had the space for their houses.

Data was collected on the size of landholdings for communal residents in Goromonzi. The average
plot size for the communal residents was 1acre for each household. Among the communal residents
the largest landholding was 1.3 acres whilst the smallest recorded landholding was 0.7 acres. The
reason for such small plots is that they were not part of any of the Land Reform Programmes in
Zimbabwe. Some of the communal residents acquired their plots through the chief in the early
1940s. Others acquired their plots around the 1990s. In the past the land was assigned to each
family that was in the Chief’s area. The land was passed down from generation to generation.
Evidence of this is seen in the age of some of the respondents. There are three (3) respondents that
are between the ages of 61 and 70 as shown by Table 3 above.

39
Table 3 Size of Landholdings for Respondents in Goromonzi Community

A2 A1 COMMUNAL GROWTH
NUMBER FARMERS FARMERS RESIDENTS POINT
RESIDENTS

1 360ha 5ha 1acre 400m2

2 40ha 4ha 0.9 acres 400m2

3 92ha 6ha 0.8 acres 440m2

4 26ha 6ha 1.1acre 450m2

5 25ha 5ha 1.3 acres 450m2

6 72ha 4ha 1acre 480m2

7 48ha 6ha 0.9 acres 500m2

8 32ha 5ha 0.7 acres 500m2

9 42ha 5ha 1.2 acres 600m2

10 75ha 7ha 0.9 acres 640m2

11 70ha 0ha 1.1 acres 650m2

12 950ha 6ha 1 acre 650m2

13 - 0ha - 750m2

14 - 7ha - 800m2

15 - 6ha - 800m2

40
Fifteen growth point residents were interviewed. Data on the size of their stands was collected as
shown in Table 3 above. The stands increased significantly in size further away from the centre of
the growth point. The stands are between 400m2 and 800m2. The growth point stands are much
smaller in size as compared to A1, A2 and Communal landholdings. They do not have space for
any type of agriculture. These stands resemble the size of residential houses in medium density
parts of Harare. These stands were acquired by the GPR through a land lease programme by the
Goromonzi Kubatana Rural District Council in the early 1990s. The people who applied for these
stands were looking for a place to stay that was near Harare or came to Goromonzi for employment
opportunities. The community has since grown into a bustling neighborhood. This growth has
greatly contributed to the development of Goromozi into an administrative centre for Goromonzi
District.

41
 ii) Year of Acquisition of Plots

Communal residents in Goromonzi Community acquired their plots between 1943 and 1984. The
Growth Point residents acquired their stands from the early 1990s to the late 1990s.The allocation
of both A1 and A2 plots began soon after the start of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme
(FTLRP) in early 2000.

Bar graph for year of acquisition

3.5

2.5
Respondents

A2 Farmers
2

1.5
A1 Farmers
1

0.5

0
Before 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 After
2000 2005
Year

Figure 5 Year of Acquisition of A1 and A2 Plots in Goromonzi Community

In Goromonzi Community A2 Plots were allocated as early as 2002. The respondents were asked
the year they acquired their A2 plots in Goromonzi. Fifty percent (50%) of the respondents received
their plots between 2003 and 2004. Two respondents (16.6%) got their plots in 2002. The allocation
of the majority of the A2 plots happened five years into the FTLRP as shown in Figure 5 above.
This shows how swift the programme was in redistributing land to the local people. This early
distribution of plots set the pace for the gradual development of Goromonzi for the next fifteen
years. Two respondents were not A2 plot holders but they had their plots among the A2 plots. They
acquired their plots before 2000 during the first Land Reform Program in the 1990s.

Respondents for the A1 plots were asked the year they were resettled to Goromonzi. A total of six
out of fifteen respondents were resettled in Goromonzi between 2001 and 2002. They represented

42
40% of the total population. There were two respondents who although they did not have A1 plots
they resided amongst A1 resettled farmers. Most of the A1 resettled farmers acquired their plots
between 2001 and 2002. This was because A1 plots began before that of A2 plots in order to
decongest the communal areas. The pattern of resettled in Goromonzi proved that indeed these A1
resettled farmers came into the area during the FTLRP.

iii) Means of Acquisition

The A2 resettled farmers, A1 resettled farmers, the communal residents and the growth point
residents all acquired their plots in different ways. Figure 6 below shows the means of acquisition
of plots and stands in Goromonzi for the four sampled groups. A2 resettled farmers acquired their
plots during the FTLRP that began in Zimbabwe in the 2000s. Two respondents (16.7%) out of the
twelve respondents did not acquire their plots during the FTLRP but they did so during the first
Land Reform Program in the 1990s. All twelve plots were all as a result of the government’s land
reform programme in order to fix the highly skewed land distribution that was inherited at
independence. The FTLRP has played a major role in the development of Goromonzi through
resettlement of both A1 and A2 farmers in the area. This is shown in the population and agriculture
being done by the farmers.

The A1RF were asked how they acquired their respective plots. Thirteen out of the fifteen
respondents acquired their plots through the Fast track Land Reform Program of 2000 as shown in
Figure 6 above. The remaining two respondents who did not have any plots but lived amongst the
A1 resettled farmers. They had been living in the area as far back as 1969 when their parents were
working on the white commercial farms. Analysing the population, family sizes and abundance of
A1RFarms in Goromonzi Community, it is apparent that the FTLRP has contributed to the
development of Goromonzi through the years.

43
 100%
90%
80%
Other
70%
60% Communal chief
Respondents

50%
Goromonzi district
40% council

30% Land Reform

Programme
20%
10% FTLRP
0%
er
s
er
s ts ...
rm rm den e sid
Fa Fa e si t r
r in
A2 A1 al po
un t h
m
om r ow
Means
C of acquisition
G

Figure 6 Means of Acquisition of Plots and Stands in Goromonzi Community

The communal residents in Goromonzi first settled in the area in the early 1940s. These people
were given their land by the chief in that area as shown in Figure 6 above. Traditionally the chief
are responsible for land distribution in communal areas to families and individuals. The early
residents of Goromonzi community came from the village of Rusike due to overcrowding. They
were given new plots of lands across from the white commercial farms that dominated the area at
that time. With time the plots were passed to the children until the present generation. These
residents are not part of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme.

The Growth Point Residents acquired their stands through the Goromonzi Kubatana District
Council in the early 1990s to the 2000s. The district council began issuing out both commercial and
residential stands in the area. The stands were given on a lease agreement. Payment had to be made
annually for the stand. The applicants to the stands had to develop their stands within 6 six years of
acquiring it. This condition in the lease ensured that residential stands were quickly developed. As a
result the Growth point is now very developed in terms of housing and commercial buildings. This
has also contributed to the development of Goromonzi into an administrative centre

44
 iv) Type of Housing

There are different types of housing to be found in Goromonzi. These types of houses have changed
over the years. The types of houses in Goromonzi shows the level of development the community
has gone through. Table 4 below shows the type of houses for each of the sample groups.

Table 4 Type of Housing for Residents in Goromonzi Community

TYPE OF A2 A2 COMMUNAL GROWTH

HOUSING RESETTLED RESETTLED RESIDENTS POINT
FARMERS FARMERS RESIDENTS

Bricks+ asbestos 6 0 0 15
Roof

Exposed brick+ 6 11 8 0
iron/thatch roof

Pole and dagga+ 0 4 4 0

thatch roof

When A2 farmers first resettled in Goromonzi community, they first had houses made of thatch and
pole and dagga. These houses were mainly for their workers who looked after the plots whilst the
A2RF were in Harare or Marondera at work. Presently most of the A2RF are now full time farmers
and thus reside on their plots. Table 4 above shows the current type of housing for the A2RF. Fifty
percent of the respondents (6) have modern houses made of bricks and roofed with asbestos. The
remaining 50% have houses with exposed bricks and iron roofs. In addition some of them have the
traditional round hut kitchen made of pole and dagga and is grass thatched. This development to
modern housing for A2RF is in line with the changes and development of Goromonzi in terms of
type of housing. Other farmers acquired plots which had building that had been left by the white
commercial farmers including houses, storerooms, sheds and cow pens.

45
Over the years since the beginning of the FTLFP, the type of housing for A1RF has changed. In the
past when A1 farmers were first resettled, they all had thatched houses made of pole and dagga.
This was what they could afford as most of these people did not have any property or money when
they were resettled. They made houses out of naturally available materials which are in abundance
in Goromonzi. This is no longer the case as shown in Table 4 above. Seventy three percent of the
respondents (11) live in exposed brick houses with either iron roofs or grass thatch. Only four
respondents still live in pole and dagga houses. These statistics reveal how more A1RF are now
able to afford to build bigger and better houses in Goromonzi. In addition they all have the
traditional round hut kitchen made of pole and dagga and is grass thatched. This development also
is in line with the changes in Goromonzi in terms of type of housing. The type of housing has also
contributed to the development of Goromonzi as one can see most of these houses while driving
along Goromonzi road.

The communal residents have two types of houses: pole and dagga and exposed brick and iron
roofed. The reasons for the bricked houses are the development of Goromonzi, the proximity to the
growth point and the ability for the residents to afford such houses. The communal residents try to
copy the type of houses that are at the Growth Point. Some of the houses in the communal area
were built by white settlers for their farm workers. The houses were inherited over the years.
According to Table 5 above the majority of the houses (8) are exposed bricks with iron roofs which
the residents built themselves. The remaining 4 houses are made from pole and dagga. This shows
how Goromonzi has developed in terms of types of housing across all four sampled groups.

Data was collected on the type of housing of the Growth Point Residents. All of the fifteen
respondents had modern painted brick houses that had asbestos roofs. The growth point residents
built these houses because the District Council that gave them their stands required them to do so.
Driving through the hoses at the Growth Point has the same effect as driving through a medium
density suburb in a city. Some of the houses are double storeys. These types of houses show the
development of Goromonzi through the type of housing.

v) Residency Status

Contrary to mainstream debates, which have seen newly resettled farmers being termed cell phone
or weekend farmers, the respondents surveyed in Goromonzi indicated that the majority of plot

46
holders resided on their plots. All the percentages of residents in all three sampled groups who own
houses out of Goromonzi are below 50%. This shows how the people have made Goromonzi their
permanent home. This helps in the growth of the community as population can grow steadily.

Pie chart of respondents who own other houses

Growth point res- A2 Farmers

idents 33.3%
33.3%

A1 Famers
26.7%

Figure 7 Percentages of Respondents Who Own Other Residential Stands/Houses

The A2RF respondents were asked if they had any other residential houses or stands in Harare or
any other town. Four out of the twelve respondents (33.3%) admitted to having other houses in
Harare and Ruwa. The remaining eight respondents did not have houses in any other town as shown
in Figure 7 above. They lived on their plots permanently. Because the majority of the respondents
(66.7%) live on their plots, they are able to put all their time and effort in to farming on the A2
plots. This has the positive result of increased crop yields each farming season. In addition, these
plots have become homes for these farmers to raise their families.

The A1RF were also asked if they had any other houses or residential stands in Harare or any other
town that they owned. Four respondents (26.7%) admitted to having a house in Harare as shown by
Figure7 above. The remaining respondents did not have houses or residential stands elsewhere. The
fact that eleven out of the fifteen respondents do not have any other houses residential stands
elsewhere reveals how these A1 plots have become home to these people. They are raising their
families there and expanding on the plots in Goromonzi. This permanent residency of the A1RF is
another reason that has contributed to the growth of Goromonzi through the FTLRP.

47
Communal residents in Goromonzi did not have any other houses or residential stands in Harare or
any other city/town. Growth point residents were asked if they owned any houses or residential
stands in Harare or any other town. Five out of the fifteen respondents (33.3%) admitted to having
other houses in Harare. The remaining ten respondents did not have any houses or residential stands
elsewhere.

4.4 LIVELIHOODS AND LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A
livelihood is also a set of flows of income, from hired employment, self employment, remittances or
from a seasonally and annually variable combination of all these. Rural households adopt livelihood
diversification strategies in an attempt to generate livelihoods and enterprises that can cope with
and recover from stress and shocks, and in this way maintain and enhance their capabilities and
assets both for the present and the future. Agricultural intensification is perceived as a means of
enhancing the performance of the food system that is increasing output of yields per unit area by
increasing labour or capital on a piece of land, leading to more food and lower food prices. This is
especially the case in Zimbabwe as most people depend on agriculture as a source of livelihood.

i) Livelihood Strategies

Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for Zimbabweans and for the people in Goromonzi.
Data was collected on the type of agriculture that the A2RF engaged in. All of the respondents on
A2 plots were commercial farmers. Most of their outputs were for sale. Under the FTLRP the A2RF
as part of the conditions to attaining a plot, were asked to sell part of their yields to the Grain
Marketing Board (GMB) each year. As of the 2016-2017 farming season, they were asked to sell 3
tonnes of their produce to GMB. This farming season for the Goromonzi community was
accompanied by the government endorsed Targeted Command Agriculture. This is an agricultural
scheme aimed at ensuring food self sufficiency. It was introduced following the drought of the
previous 201-2016 farming season in order to equip farmers to produce more food for the nation.
Various crop inputs were given under the scheme. These included maize, fertiliser, insecticides and

48
herbicides. The A2RF also engage to a small extent in market gardening although their main focus
is on growing crops.

Bar graph for type of agriculture

16

14

12
Respondents

10

8 Growth
Point
A1 Residents
6 A2 Farmers Communal
Farmers Residents
4

0
Commercial Intensive subsistence Subsistence None

Type of agriculture

Figure 8 Type of Agriculture Practised in Goromonzi Community

Data was collected on the type of agriculture that the A1RF engaged in. Thirteen (86.7%) out of the
fifteen respondents engage in subsistence farming according to Figure 8 above. This is self
sufficiency farming in which the farmers focus on growing enough food to feed their families. The
output is mostly for local requirements with little or no surplus. Over the years this has developed
into intensive subsistence farming. Intensive subsistence agriculture is a method of agriculture
where farmers get more food per acre compared to other subsistence farming methods. This allows
farmers to make the most of each harvest. Farmers apply various cultivation techniques to get the
most out of their land.

One such method is the use of commercially produced fertilizer to ensure that crops get all the
nutrients they need for a bountiful yield. In addition to improving the viability of the land, farmers
rely on pesticides and herbicides to prevent or control the threat brought by pests and weeds. The
A1RF have s to sell a few tonnes of maize to the Grain Marketing Board as part of the conditions to

49
attaining the A1 plot. As of the 2016-2017 farming season, A1RF were asked to sell 3 tonnes of
their produce to GMB due to the government endorsed Targeted Command Agriculture just like the
A2RF.

Due to the small landholdings, communal residents mainly grow maize for subsistence
consumption and also engage in market gardening when it comes to farming. They produce
vegetables like peas, collard greens, onions and tomatoes. The market for these vegetables is readily
available as Goromonzi is near Harare. The demand for vegetables is high on a daily basis so the
market is available. There is however competition from A2RF who also do market gardening. The
availability of these vegetables leads to more traffic getting in and out of Goromonzi frequently and
this over the years has contributed to the development of Goromonzi.

ii) Agricultural Production

Crop production
Zimbabwe's economy is driven by agriculture and the majority of the rural people depend on it for
their livelihood. Goromonzi is in farming Region II. It is the most productive region in terms of
variety of crops grown and the amount of rainfall received annually. Table 5 below shows the types
of crops produced by A2 farmers, A1 farmers and Communal residents. Maize is the fundamental
staple crop and, therefore, the most important grain crop in Zimbabwe. Most people grow maize
whether its communal, commercial, subsistence or urban farming.

As mentioned, maize is the staple food of Zimbabwe. Table 5 below shows that all the respondents
from the three groups grow maize on the plots. For the A2RF and A1RF, they grow other crops like
beans, groundnuts and potatoes. Others also grow tobacco. Tobacco production is mostly higher on
A2 plots than on A1 plots because A2 farmers have larger plots and they have financial capital and
equipment to grow tobacco. The communal residents do not grow beans, tobacco, groundnuts or
potatoes mainly because of the size of their plots and that they do not have the financial capital.
However, they are involved in market gardening where they grow vegetables. They grow
vegetables like tomatoes, onions, peas and collard greens. The A2RF also engage in market
gardening although it is not their main focus in terms of agricultural production.

50
Table 5 Crop Production in Goromonzi Community

TYPE OF A2 FARMERS A1 FARMERS COMMUNAL

CROP RESIDENTS

Maize 100% 100% 100%

Beans 100% 33.3% --

Tobacco 41.7% 6.7% --

Groundnuts 50% 33.3% --

Potatoes 41.7 % 13.3% --

Vegetables 33.3% -- 33.3%

Livestock production

In addition to cropping, the respondents were also involved in rearing of livestock as part of their
farming. The distribution of livestock owned by the respondents is illustrated in Table 6 below. A2
resettled farmers had higher percentages of households owning all the different types of livestock.
Poultry was the widely held category of livestock owned by all three groups. The table below
shows that 100%, 80% and 66.7% of A2RF, A1RF and Communal residents owned poultry
respectively. Cattle were owned by 83.3% of A2RF and 50% of the A1RF. Many of the resettled
households rely on draught animals for land preparation, other tillage operations and farm transport.
This therefore means that some A1 resettlement farmers and communal farmers are constrained as
regards to ploughing activity.

Table 6 Livestock owned by farmers in Goromonzi Community

51
 LIVESTOCK A2 FARMERS A1 FARMERS COMMUNAL
RESIDENTS

Cows 83.3% 50% --

Goats 50% 66.7% 20%

Pigs 33.3% -- --

Poultry 100% 80% 66.7%

Rabbits 25% 20% --

Goats were the other type of livestock owned by farmers besides cattle and poultry in Goromonzi
community. Small-ruminants contribute to household welfare through cash income from sales and
through slaughter for consumption. They meet large annual expenses such as school fees and for
intermittent cash. In the event of drought they are also an important form of buffer capital as their
numbers can be quickly restored (Mhlanga et.al., 1999). Goats were more commonly owned by
A1RF with 63.7% ownership than A2RF and communal residents who had 50% and 20%
respectively. Pigs were not commonly owned by the respondents with only 33.3% of A2RF owning
them. Rabbits were the least owned livestock with 25% and 20% for A1RF and A2RF respectively.

Agricultural assets

The oownership level of agricultural assets was generally higher amongst the A2RF as they had the
most types of farm equipment as compared to that of A1RF and communal farmers. The ownership
levels for common forms of hand tools i.e. hoes and axes was at 100% in for all sampled groups.
Table 7 below shows that A2RF own larger agricultural assets like tractors, harrows and ploughs as
they are involved in commercial farming.

Table 7 Agricultural assets owned by farmers in Goromonzi Community

52
 ASSETS A2 A1 COMMUNAL
FARMERS FARMERS RESIDENTS

1. Hoes, axes 100% 100% 100%

2. Wheelbarrows 100% 50% 20%

3. Knapsack sprayers 100% 20% --

4. Plough 50% 33.3% --

5. Cultivator 58.3% 13.3% --

6. Harrows 41.7% 20% --

7. Tractor 66.7% -- --

8. Planter 33.3% -- --

9. Water pump 75% -- --

10. Borehole/water tank 100% -- --

11. Truck/lorry 83.3% 13.3% 13.3%

Communal farmers and A1RF do not own any water pumps, boreholes or water tanks. They get
their water from community boreholes dug by foreign and local donors. The A2RF because they
practice commercial farming, they all have their own source of water. Only 25% of A2RF did not
have water pumps. Communal residents have the least ownership of agricultural assets. According
to Table 7 above, they only own three out of the eleven agricultural assets.

iii) Transformation of Livelihood Strategies

A2 Resettled Farmers

53
A2 resettled farmers were asked what livelihood strategies they had when they were resettled to
Goromonzi. Eight out of the twelve respondents had off-farm livelihood strategies. They were
formally employed and that was where they got their income. The remaining four respondents were
farming on their A2 plots. At first they were using only a few hectares of land to sustain
themselves, their families and sell some surplus to GMB. They mainly grew maize and sometimes
beans on their plots. These were on-farm livelihood strategies.

Out of the eight respondents who were formally employed, only two are left. For the remaining six
their livelihood strategies have transformed into full time farming. The majority of the A2RF are
now engaging in various forms of agriculture. They grow various crops for commercial purposes
like maize, tobacco and potatoes. They also have different livestock on their plots. Their yield has
increased as compared to when they first resettled to Goromonzi.

A1 Resettled Farmers
A1 resettled farmers were asked what livelihood strategies they had at the time they resettled in
Goromonzi Community. Thirteen out of the fifteen respondents who have A1 plots admitted that
their livelihood strategy was subsistence farming when they were first resettled. At the time they
were resettled they used less than a hectare of their plots for both housing and farming. They could
not afford to produce more on their plots. The A1RF grew only maize to provide food for
themselves and their families. The little surplus they got they sold to access cash for other basic
needs. These were on farm livelihood strategies.

Three out the thirteen A1RF were civil servants or had a personal business. These respondents had
two livelihood strategies that is farming and working. The income they received from their jobs
helped them not only to finance their plots but supplement cash for other needs. Their jobs were
off-farm livelihood strategies. The respondents were asked whether their on-farm or off-farm
livelihood strategies have transformed from the time they were resettled up to now. All thirteen of
the A1RF agreed that their on farm livelihood strategies transformed. According to the respondents,
they now utilise at least 70% of their plots which is usually under crop production. The rest of the
plot is for housing and livestock.

Communal Residents

54
Livelihood strategies for communal residents have also transformed over the years. In the past they
worked on white commercial farms. Currently most of their strategies depend on A2 and A1
resettled farmers. Ever since the A2RF and A1RF came to Goromonzi, the communal residents
have found seasonal work on their plots. They help in planting, harvesting and taking care of
livestock. In return they get money, food and clothes. They also have their small plots on which
they engage in market gardening. In addition they pursue other non-farm strategies like finding
work in nearby towns like Ruwa, engaging in making of local crafts, in trade, hiring out of their
labour and selling old clothes.

Growth Point Residents

Livelihood strategies for Growth Point Residents are not agriculture based. They are mainly
migration as most of the residents came from urban centres in search of job opportunities. These
respondents are formally employed in government and non-governmental organisations. That is
where their livelihood lies. Most of the respondents (10) have been formally employed for than 20
years. Their livelihood strategy has not changed over the years. The remaining 5 respondents who
have personal businesses have changed their livelihood strategies. They were once formally
employed but they left their jobs to pursue their own businesses.

4.5 OBSERVATION GUIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GOROMONZI

i) Land cover

According to Squires (2010), land cover refers to the observed physical surface of the earth,
including various combinations of vegetation types, soils, exposed rocks and water bodies. There
was a significant decrease of wooded grassland land and there were irregularities in vegetation
densities and distribution in Goromonzi Community. Deforestation was identified as the most
contributing factor to land cover change in Goromonzi. This was due to clearing of land for
cultivation and selling of firewood. Land was cleared for cultivation under the post 2000 era, during
the Government of Zimbabwe’s Fast-Track Land Resettlement Programme when newly resettled
farmers converted some woodland into cropland. The conversion of the woodland to cropland was
more pronounced from 2000 to 2005 than was for 2006 to 2012. The conversion increased from
2012 to 2017.

55
 ii) Land use

Historically, land in the Goromonzi had been under pressure from industry, commerce, residential
development and agriculture. Prior to fast track, the major land tenure and land-use categories in the
district were customary, large-scale commercial farms, small-scale commercial farms and state
lands (Marongwe, 2003: 4). In the pre-FTLRP period, Goromonzi was diverse in terms of its
agricultural activities with livestock rearing as the major activity, occupying about 60% of the total
land. This was followed by 25% of the farmers involved in horticulture, producing beans, peas and
flowers. Twenty four 24% of the farmers were growing major crops like maize as well as tobacco.
Presently the major land use in Goromonzi is small holder farms, small commercial farms (A2 and
A1 farms) and communal farms. These occupy most of the land and the major activity is growing
maize. After maize beans is another crop grown in the area. Livestock rearing is mainly for the
A2RF and A1RF. They have livestock such as cattle, goats and poultry. At the growth point the
major land use are residential stands, institutional stands and commercial stands. These are the
houses, governmental and non-governmental institutions and shops.

iii) Socio-economic development

Before 1999 the economy of Goromonzi District was flourishing and many of the local residents
were employed and had jobs on commercial farms that were growing flowers and gourmet
vegetables in greenhouses for export. Post FTLRP, traditional families now base their livelihoods
on subsistence farming growing crops that are dependent on rainfall. At the current rate of inflation
the cost of fertilizers and seeds are prohibitive for them and there is limited access to market today.
There are currently two schools in Goromonzi Community that are Goromonzi High School and
Goromonzi Primary School. The community has received a few awards over the years. These
include Most Improved Local Authority 2011, Second Best Local Authority 2012, Best Local
Authority in Infrastructure development 2013 and Overall Best Local Authority 2013.

iv) Local governance

56
All the standard local government structures and authorities exist in Goromonzi Community. At
local farm level the prominent structures in Goromonzi include the AREX (extension officers),
AGRITEX, EMA, Committee of Seven, the village head and the district land committee.
Traditional leadership has changed over time especially in how it governs land issues in
resettlement areas. Unlike in communal areas where it has a mandate to give land, in resettlement
areas it is more involved in solving disputes with regards to land and settlers. At district level,
government institutions that were identified included: District Administrator (DA), District Land
Committee (DLC), Ministry of Education, Veterinary Department, Forestry Commission,
Goromonzi Rural District Council (GRDC), Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, Grain
Marketing Board (GMB), District Development Fund (DDF) and traditional leaders mainly chiefs
and headmen.

v) Population

In 2012 the population of Zimbabwe was 13 061 239. The proportion of male and female
population was 48 and 52 percent respectively. As of the 2012 census Goromonzi District had a
population of 224,987, up from 154,262 in the 2002 census. There are 113 506 females and 110 373
males in the District. The percentage of females is 50, 7% while that of males is 49, 3%. The
population density for Goromonzi district is 9 people per square kilometre. The average family size
for Goromonzi is 4 people per household. The population is growing rapidly as seen by how the
population almost doubled between 2002 and 2012.

vi) Infrastructure

Infrastructure is the basic physical systems of a nation. Infrastructure Development involves

fundamental structures that are required for the functioning of a community & society. This is
usually referred to structures like roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications
and renewable energy. Water is obtained by digging holes. The influence of development is seeping
into Goromonzi thus providing tapped water to a rapidly expanding community. Irrigation
development continues to expand on A2 plots. New houses are being built as the Growth Point is
now being built to cater for middle-class citizens who have tired of the city life. Even more houses
are being built by A2RF, A1RF and Communal residents in Goromonzi. These are no longer the
traditional round huts but brick houses. Goromonzi is on the electric grid but individual homes are
not connected and it is too expensive for most families. There is however electrification scheme for

57
communal residents who are close to the growth point. Communication is still slow but service
providers are working to get network to the residents.

vii) Transport

The roads in Goromonzi are dirt or strip roads and are in poor condition. In the past there was little
traffic, as few people had the resources to own or operate a truck. There are a few oxcarts. Presently
there is a major tarred road from the intersection with Mutare Road and Goromonzi Road. Traffic
has greatly increased with more people owning personal cars. Public transport is by commuter taxi
and these have also increased in numbers. Trucks and lorries are now common in the area as they
move about ferrying goods to and from Harare. They travel from Harare to Goromonzi at the Juru
Growth Point daily. Except the tarred road, all other smaller roads are still dust roads and they are
in bad condition especially due to the rains. Walking is the standard, and it is not unusual for
children to walk 6-7 km to school or for family members to walk the same distance for food.

58
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 CONTRIBUTION OF THE FTLRP TO THE GROWTH OF

GOROMONZI AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE THROUGH
LIVELIHOODS

To a greater extent the FTLRP contributed to the growth and development of Goromonzi
community into the administrative centre of Goromonzi District. The FTLRP brought a lot of
people to Goromonzi. During the time of the white settlers there were not many people as the
whites owned large pieces of land. They lived on the commercial farms with their small nucleus
families. Some of their farm workers lived in surrounding areas whilst others lived on the farms.
With the coming of the FTLRP, many families were resettled where in the past only one family had
lived. This contributed to the population of Goromonzi hence its growth.

When people were resettled to Goromonzi, they came in their child-bearing ages. The age of the
people living in Goromonzi shows that today, most of them are in their late forties to early sixties.
This shows that almost twenty years ago they were in their late twenties to early forties. This is the
child bearing age. This therefore means that the people came and either started their families or
expanded their families with more children. Furthermore the marital status of the residents of
Goromonzi supports the theory of the growth of the community. The majority of the respondents
from the A2RF, A1RF Communal Residents and Growth Point Residents, are married. This means
that it is the case that when these people were resettled or relocated (in the case of Growth Point
Residents) to Goromonzi they came at their child bearing age and they were also married. They
came as small families.

This led them to expand their families and thus contribute to the overall population which grew
almost twice as much since the beginning of the FTLRP. In addition to age and marital status, the
family sizes of the residents in Goromonzi Community show how the overall population has grown
since the start of the FTLRP. The majority of the families have members between 6 and 10. For the
communal residents there are families with more than 11 members. For the A2p plots, there are

59
more than 45 families combined. These families could each have at least 5 members per family.
The growth of the population has thus increased incredibly since the early 2000s.

The level of education and occupation gave also contributed to the development of Goromonzi.
Many government institutions like AGRITEX or AREX came to the newly resettled communities
in order to assist the new farmers with knowledge and information. This saw the influx of young
educated people who came seeking for employment. Data indicates that the coming of the FTLRP
to the community attracted more of the economically active age groups. This suggests that the
younger group of people were more interested in applying and benefitting from the FTLRP not only
in term of accessing land but also employment as they believed that they had the ability to start a
new life in the new resettlement areas. This influx of employment seeking people also meant an
increase in the population of the community.

The FTLRP began in the early 2000s. All the A2RF and A1RF came to Goromonzi during this
time. They were resettled from 2002 to 2007. Around this same time some of the young educated
people came seeking for employment. However, the majority of the Growth Point Residents came
during the first government instituted Land Reform Program (LRP). Additionally, the means of
acquisition of land in the community suggests that the majority of people acquired their land
through the FTLRP that is two out of the four sampled groups. Many people therefore came to
Goromonzi as a result of the FTLRP as seen in the timeline and means of land acquisition.

The growth and development of Goromonzi community is also seen in the housing and residency of
the population. The majority of houses in the community are brick houses. A few communal and
A1RF still have only pole and dagga houses. The rest have pole and dagga traditional kitchens in
addition to brick houses. The houses at the Growth Point are modern. They are all painted and have
asbestos roofs. These types of buildings are found in urban centres. As the majority of the Growth
Point Residents came from cities looking for work and seeking peaceful living away from the
bustling cities, they built their houses according to what they were used to in their former towns and
cities. In terms of residency most of the people across all four sampled groups do not have any
other houses or stands elsewhere besides in Goromonzi. This means that all their lives and
livelihoods are centred in the community. The proximity of communal lands to Harare resulted in
people from Harare seeking land for residential purposes. All this has over the years contributed to
the growth of the community.

60
One of the major reasons that resulted in the contribution of the FTLRP to the growth and
development of Goromonzi into an administrative centre was the livelihoods specifically the
transformation and diversification of these livelihoods. A clearer understanding of rural livelihoods
diversification can be achieved by breaking down the various activities of the rural households
based on their core activities, either on an individual or group basis or on whether movement away
from the home-base is involved (Toulmine et al., 2000). Many reasons push households and
individuals to diversify their assets, incomes and activities. The major motives that push people into
diversifying their livelihoods include risk reduction to deal with poverty, responding to various
constraints such as land fragmentation, labour supply issues and involvement in complementary
activities.

From the early 2000s up to late 2016, the livelihood strategies of the residents of Goromonzi have
transformed and diversified. For the majority of the people agriculture is the main source of
livelihood. Agricultural production plays a catalytic role in the county’s economy. It forms the basis
of the direct and indirect livelihoods of almost 70% of the population especially in rural areas.
Economic growth is also linked to the performance of this sector. Agricultural outputs impact
directly on key sectors of the economy including manufacturing, mining, construction and finance
(Robertson, 2011). Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector has emerged from a prolonged period of
structural change, in the context of shifts in the social, political and economic environments. Of
particular note are the shifts in the scale of operations and the composition of the farming sector
since 2000 that is, during and after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (Anseeuw et al, 2012).

Agricultural production decreased significantly after the start of the FTLRP. Many resettled and
communal farmers had no knowledge of farming and thus only produced very little yields in order
to sustain themselves and their families. Currently agricultural production has improved over the
years. Agriculture differs from communal, subsistence and commercial farming. There are
significantly more yields per hectare of land for the A2 and A1 farmers. This is because of the
assistance of the government through AREX in providing knowledge to the residents in Goromonzi.

This assistance is what contributed to the transformation and diversification of agricultural

production. As a result more crops are now being grown, livestock ownership has increased and
employment opportunities have arisen. The major crops are maize, beans, tobacco and groundnuts
while livestock includes cattle, goats, pigs and poultry. Livestock are an important component of
assets in the communal areas. They contribute to agricultural productivity through providing

61
draught power especially for A1 and communal farmers to both irrigation and dry land farming.
They supply manure that is needed on plots and contributes to household food availability through
production, as a production asset and through household food accessibility, through income
generation.

The employment status of former white farm workers is critical to assessing the impacts of FTLRP
since it defines the scope of their new livelihoods. Losses in farm worker employment were
encountered in the agrarian sector. Due to the development of the agrarian sector since the early
2000s, employment opportunities are available on both A2 and A1 plots. Permanent, part time and
seasonal job opportunities are available. These include planting, weeding, harvesting and rearing
livestock. As a result more people from other rural communities come in search of farm work and
they also contribute to the population as some of them never return home but choose to settle
permanently in Goromonzi. Furthermore the growth of the agrarian sector over the years has been
escalated by the proximity of Goromonzi to Harare. There is a big market for crops, livestock and
vegetables and the consumers prefer to do business with farmers that are close to Harare where the
demand is very high. Donations and partnerships work to increase agricultural output for the
available market in Harare.

The growth and development of Goromonzi Community into an administrative centre is seen by the
work of the GRDC. In 2013 the GRDC held a meeting with the communal residents to determine h
where they were and which areas were not inhabited. This was done in order to find more land to
expand the Growth Point into. This shows how the community has grown and is still expanding.
Furthermore ZINWA is digging trenches to install tap water for the communal residents. ZESA also
started a rural electrification program for the communal residents. They pay a joining fee of US $50
for the electrification program. Both these programs are only for the communal residents. The
A2RF and A1RF mostly have solar power on their plots. The larger plots are connected to the
electric grid.

However, Goromonzi was already a developing community even before the FTLRP began. Its close
proximity to Harare meant it attracted a lot of people who were seeking the peace and quiet of
communal life not far from the city. As early as the 1993 people were acquiring stands at the
Growth Point. The growth rate is slowed down by the economic issues that are in the country.
There are cash problems and this slows down development and further growth of Goromonzi

62
5.2 POLICIES DRIVING SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES

The country has an education policy that encourages its citizens to be literate. Such a policy is vital,
but can also continue to encourage farmers to continue going to school so that they can be literate.
This would increase the efficiency level of farmers. Agricultural extension and farmer-education
programmes as key policy instruments for governments seeking to improve the productivity of
agriculture, while protecting the environment. Training, development and extension services have a
positive impact on both the quality and the quantity of agricultural products. In addition, engaging
in these activities ensure effective and efficient agricultural production. To this extent, Zimbabwe is
not left out in the provision of agricultural training, development and extension services.

The communal lands of Zimbabwe are of particular concern from an environmental perspective, as
they are over-crowded, overstocked, deforested, and degraded with prevalent soil erosion and
decline in soil fertility. Current land-use practises if not changed are likely to lead to more
degradation and reduced agricultural productivity, further jeopardising household food security,
income and employment at all levels. The Government has established many independent colleges
for example Henderson Agricultural College in Mazowe that educates young people on sustainable
agriculture. Most universities like University of Zimbabwe and Bindura University have degrees in
agriculture and agricultural research centres.

The research centres are there to investigate better methods of sustainable agriculture that reduces
land degradation for example the Institute of Environmental Studies (IES) has a program that
strengthens environmental education in agricultural colleges in Zimbabwe. The purpose of the
project is to mainstream sustainable natural resources management in professional agricultural
education through facilitating the development and incorporation of environmental education into
the curricula of higher national agricultural diploma programmes. Primary school students are also
taught about the environmental problems and how to curb them concerning agriculture.

To be sustainable agriculture in the communal lands Like Goromonzi requires interventions that
will help to intensify and increase production on better quality land; reduce the degradation of the
remaining woodlands and grazing lands; rehabilitate badly affected areas and improve the overall

63
efficiency and effectiveness of such efforts. Many educational programmes and campaigns ensure
environmental education on agriculture.

Agricultural research and rural extension (AREX) and many non-governmental organisations
(NGO) also promote environmental education on agriculture. AREX provides extension advice to
small farmers as a matter of routine and to commercial farmers when requested. A variety of
extension approaches are followed including the master farmer training approach, group
development areas, radio listening groups, commodity interests groups, demonstrations, field days,
study tours and farm visits. NGOs use social media like Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter to educate
people on environmental issues regarding agriculture.

There has been the formation of many farmer organisations. These include Farm Community Trust
of Zimbabwe (FCTZ), Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU) and Commercial Farmers Union (CFU).
The Ministry of Lands and Agriculture has implemented programs that help educate the rural
communities on environmental issues concerning agriculture. The government introduced new and
better methods of farming over the years. For example, the implementation of zero-tillage to avoid
loosening the soil, farming at least 30m from the river and crop rotation are methods of helping
reduce degradation from soil erosion.

According to GoZ (2013), The Zimbabwe Agriculture Investment Plan is structured on the
following four pillars:

i. Increasing production and productivity through improved management and sustainable

use of land, water, forestry and wildlife resources.
ii. Increasing participation of farmers in domestic and export markets through
development of an efficient agricultural marketing system and an enabling environment
for competitive agricultural production, investment and trade.
iii. Ensuring food and nutritional security by facilitating a cohesive multi-sectoral
agricultural response.
iv. Improving agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption.

Zimbabwe has many underutilized small to medium sized dams and irrigation schemes that could
be used as a basis for increased productivity and by smallholders like the A2RF and A1RF. The
Government thus finalised a new Irrigation Policy to guide irrigation development and procedures

64
in the sector. The Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) provides for the sustainable
management of natural resources and protection of the environment. To this end, the Government
has created the Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate. This is due to the threat of climate
change on the economy and livelihoods and particularly on agriculture. A Climate Change
Response Strategy was also finalized, which ensures that climate change response is mainstreamed
in all sectors. For agriculture, land and environment, the strategy provides a framework for
strengthening and implementing the climate and disaster management policy, promoting
conservation agriculture, rehabilitating irrigation, promoting drought high yielding and heat tolerant
varieties and promoting renewable energy.

5.3 CONCLUSION

The contribution of the FTLRP to the development and growth of Goromonzi the administrative
centre for the District of Goromonzi through livelihoods is evident. Agriculture has played a major
role in this growth as it is the major livelihood not only in Goromonzi but in Zimbabwe as a whole.
Migration of people from urban centers in search of employment is another livelihood strategy that
has made Goromonzi develop. With the influx of people into the community, population increased
and the demand for goods and services especially agricultural services increased. This led the GoZ
and other NGOs to extend their branches to the community. There are also policies that have helped
to govern the community and ultimately led to its development. There have been great strides in
advancing agricultural knowledge and dissemination. More people have more access to the
knowledge and this has had the effect increased yields. The people are also aware of sustainable
methods of farming that preserve the environment.

65
66
REFERENCES

African Institute for Agrarian Studies. (2009). Fast Track Land Reform 2005/2006 Baseline Survey in
Zimbabwe: Trends and tendencies. Harare: African Institute for Agrarian Studies.

Anseeuw. W, Kapuya T and Saruchera D, (2012), Zimbabwe’s agricultural reconstruction: Present state,
ongoing projects and prospects for reinvestment, Development Planning Division, Working Paper Series
No. 32. Development Bank of Southern Africa Limited

Barrett, C.B., T. Reardon and P. Webb. 2001. “Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood
strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics and policy implications”. Food Policy

Bond, P., 2008. Response to Lessons of Zimbabwe. Available from: http://links.org.au/node/815/9693

[Accessed 18 January 2017].

Campbell, H. 2008. ‘‘Mamdani, Mugabe and the African Scholarly Community.’’ Available
from: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/52845 [Accessed 18 January 2017].

Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. (2002) Household
Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints. (Bogor: Centre for International Forestry
Research).

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st
Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS.

Chitsike, F. (2003), A Critical Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe, Harare: University
of Zimbabwe Press.

Christiaensen, L., Demery, L., Kuhl, J., (2011). The Evolving Role of Agriculture in Poverty Reduction—
An Empirical Perspective. J. Dev. Economic.

Cowan C.W. and Watson P.J., eds. (1992). The Origins of Agriculture. An International
Perspective.Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

67
Davidova, S., Fredriksson, L. And Bailey, A. (2009): Subsistence and semi-subsistence farming in selected
EU new member states, Agricultural Economics.

Diao, X., Hazell, P., Resnick, D. and Thurlow, J. (2007) The Role of Agriculture in Development:
Implications for Sub-Saharan Africa (Research Report 153). International Food Policy Research Institute

Ellis, Frank (2000). "The Determinants of Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing

Countries". Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Frost, P., (2007). In search of improved rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions through local management
of natural resources: lessons from case studies in Zimbabwe. World Development.

Goromonzi Rural District Council, 2000.A Report Fast Track Land Reform in District: Goromonzi.

Government of Zimbabwe, (2000), The Accelerated Land Reform and Resettlement Implementation Plan
(Fast Track), Harare: Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, and Rural Resettlement

Government of Zimbabwe (1996), Policy Paper on Resettlement in Zimbabwe.

Government of Zimbabwe, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2013), Zimbabwe Agriculture
Investment Plan: A Comprehensive Framework for the Development of Zimbabwe’s Agriculture Sector.

Hoang, V. (2011) Analysis of productive performance of crop and animal production systems: An
integrated analytical framework. Working/Discussion Paper 268. QUT School of Economics and Finance.

Hussein, L and Nelson, P (1998), Sustainable Livelihoods and livelihoods diversification: Institute of
Development Studies. London.

Malleson, R, Meeske, R, Erasmus, L, Niekerk W. A. van Coertze, R J, (2008), A Methodology for

Assessing Rural Livelihood Strategies in West/Central Africa: Lessons from the Field, Ecological and
Environmental Anthropology (University of Georgia) USA.

Mandizadza, S. 2009. The impact of FTLRP on livelihoods for resettled households on Athlone Farm A1
Scheme. A proposal submitted to the ‘Livelihoods after Land Reform in Zimbabwe’ programme.

Masiiwa, M., (2004). Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe: Harare. University of Zimbabwe Press.

68
Marsh, R, (2003), Working with Local Institutions to Support Sustainable Livelihoods, Rural Development
Division, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Marongwe, N. (2008), Interrogating Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform and Resettlement Programme:
A focus on beneficiary selection. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape, PhD Thesis.

Moyo, S. (2013). ‘Land reform and redistribution in Zimbabwe since 1980’, in Land and Agrarian Reform
in Former Settler Colonial Zimbabwe, pp 29-78. Dakar: CODESRIA.

Moyo, S. (2004), Overall Impacts of the Fast Track Land Reform Program, Prepared for the Review of the
Zimbabwean Agricultural Sector following the Implementation of the Land Reform Project, AIAS, Harare,
Zimbabwe.

Moyo, S. (2006). “The Evolution of Zimbabwe’s Land Acquisition.” In Zimbabwe’s Agricultural

Revolution Revisited, Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.

Moyo, S., Chambati, W. and Murisa, T. (2009) Fast Track Land Reform: Trends and Tendencies, Report
of the Baseline District Studies (Harare: African Institute for Agrarian Studies).

Murray, C. (2002) Livelihoods research: transcending boundaries of time and space. Journal of Southern
African Studies, Special Issue: Changing Livelihoods, 28(3).

Mushongah J & Scoones I, (2012): Livelihood Change in Rural Zimbabwe over 20 Years, Journal of
Development Studies, DOI:10.1080/00220388.2012.671474. Vol. 48, No. 9

Mushongah, J. (2009) Rethinking vulnerability: livelihood change in southern Zimbabwe, 1986-2006.

University of Sussex.

Richardson, C. 2004. The Collapse of Zimbabwe in the Wake of the 2000–2003 Land Reforms. Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen Press.

Robertson, J, (2011). Statistics on the Zimbabwean Economy. www.slidenet/Sokwanele/ zimbabwe-

economy-october-2009.

Schneider, K. and Gugerty, M. K. (2011) Agricultural Productivity and Poverty Reduction: Linkages and
Pathways, The Evans School Review, Vol. 1 (1).

69
Scoones, I (1998), “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.” IDS Working Paper 72,
Institute of Development Studies.

Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Murimbarimba, F., Mahenehene, J. And Sukume, C., (2010).
Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities. Harare and London: Weaver Press, Jacana Media and
James Currey.

Shaw, W. (2003), They Stole Our Land’: Debating the Expropriation of White farms in Zimbabwe, Journal
of Modern African Studies 42(1): 75–89.

Smith B. (1995). The Emergence of Agriculture. New York: Scientific American Library.

The Zimbabwe Institute, (2007), Agriculture, Land and Agrarian Reform: Policies and Programmes, Cape
Town, South Africa

Waters T, (2007) The Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture: Life Beneath The Level Of The Marketplace.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

70
APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRRE FOR A1 AND A2 RESETTLED FARMERS IN GOROMONZI

COMMUNITY

NO#

SECTION A

Plot Size……………………………………………...……………

Family Name (HoH)……………………………….........................

Age ………………………………

Sex ………………………………

Marital status……………………

Family Size (tick where appropriate)

a) 0-5
b) 6-10
c) 10 and above

Education (tick where appropriate)

a) Primary
b) Secondary
c) Tertiary
d) N/A

Occupation …………………………………………………………….

SECTION B

1) When (year) did you resettle to Goromonzi?

……………………………………………...………………………..……………

2) How did you acquire your plot?

71
 …………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

3) What type of housing do you have?

i) Burnt bricks asbestos roofed
ii) Pole and dagga and thatched
iii) Exposed bricks, iron/grass thatched
iv) Other (specify)........................................................................................

4) Do you have a house in town/residential stand in town? Yes ….. No…...

5) What was your livelihood strategy (ies) at the time? Where they on-farm or non-farm
strategies?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………

6) Have your on-farm livelihood strategies transformed in the last 5years? If yes what other
livelihood strategies do you now pursue?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………

7) Have your non-farm livelihood strategies transformed? If yes what other livelihood
strategies do you now pursue?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………

8) What type of agriculture do you practice?

a) Intensive livestock production
b) Market gardening
c) Intensive crop farming
d) Intensive subsistence farming
e) Subsistence farming

SECTION C

72
Type of crops produced

Type of crops Is it a current Did you produce it Since you started

produced on plot crop on plot in when you first producing it has your
settled here yields increased in the last
7 years

1. Maize

2. Beans

3. Tobacco

4. Groundnuts

5. Potatoes
6. Vegetables
(tomatoes, onions,
collard greens, etc)

7. Other (specify)

Livestock possession and acquisition

How many did you have How many have you

Type of Domestic Total as of when you first settled acquired in the last 7
Animals 2017 here? years?

1. Cows
2. Sheep
3. Goats
4. Donkeys
5. Pigs
6. Ducks
7. Turkeys
8. Chickens
9. Rabbits

73
Assets

Do you currently own any How many have you

Agricultural assets of the following and how acquired in the last 7
many years

1. Hoes

2. Axes

3. Wheelbarrows

4. Knapsack sprayers

5. Plough

6. Cultivator

7. Harrows

8. Tractor

9. Planter

10. Water pump

11. Borehole

12. Truck/lorry/bicycle

74
APPENDIX II

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COMMUNAL RESIDENTS IN GOROMONZI

SECTION A

Plot Size……………………………………………...……………

Family Name (HoH)……………………………….........................

Age ………………………………

Sex ………………………………

Marital status……………………

Family Size (tick where appropriate)

a) 0-5
b) 6-10
c) 10 and above

Education (tick where appropriate)

a) Primary
b) Secondary
c) Tertiary
d) N/A

Occupation …………………………………………………………….

SECTION B

9) When (year) did you start living in Goromonzi?

……………………………………………...………………………..………………………

75
10) How did you acquire your plot?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………..…….

11) What type of housing do you have?

v) Burnt bricks asbestos roofed
vi) Pole and dagga and thatched
vii) Exposed bricks, iron/ grass thatched
viii) Other (specify)........................................................................................

12) Do you have a house in town/residential stand in town? Yes ….. No…...

13) What was your livelihood strategy (ies) at the time?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

14) Have your livelihood strategies transformed in the last 10years? If yes what other livelihood
strategies do you now
pursue? .......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
.............

15) Do you own any livestock?

Livestock Number of livestock

16) Do you own any agricultural and non-agricultural assets?

Agricultural assets Non-agricultural assets

76
77
APPENDIX III

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR GROWTH POINT RESIDENTS IN GOROMONZI

SECTION A

Stand size…………………………………………..

Family name………………………………………..

Age …………………………….

Sex …………………...………..

Marital status……………………

Family size

1. 0-5
2. 6-10
3. 10 and above

Education

1. Primary
2. Secondary
3. Tertiary
4. None

Occupation ………………………………………

SECTION B

1. When did you start living in Goromonzi?

2. How did you acquire your stand?

78
3. What type of housing do you have?

i. Bricks with asbestos/ tiled roof

ii. Pole and dagga thatched
iii. Exposed bricks and grass thatched
iv. Other (specify)…………………………………………………

4) Do you have a house in town/residential stand in town? Yes ….. No…...

5) What is your source of income?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………

6) Has your source of income changed in the last 10 years?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………….

79
80
APPENDIX IV

OBSERVATION GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOROMONZI COMMUNITY

(2000-2016)

Indicators 2017 2010 2000

Land cover

Land use

Infrastructure

Transport

Socio-economic
development

Population

Local governance

81