African Institute for Agrarian Studies
Impact of FTLRP on Farm Workers and Labour
Processes
in Zimbabwe
Walter Chambati
June 2007
1
1.0 Background: Pre-FTLRP Farm Structure,
Production Systems and Labour
• Unequal bi-modal agrarian structure: 4,500 LSCF
occupied 11.2 million ha (34% prime land) and 1 million
smallholders occupied 16.4 million ha (mostly drier
regions)
• Racially skewed land ownership
• Farm sizes in the LSCF sector averaged 2,000 ha
(freehold) whilst in smallholders 1 – 2 ha (state)
• LSCF production – capital intensive geared towards
export crops (horticulture, tobacco, dairy, sugar, coffee
etc)
• Smallholder – labour intensive – food crops (maize) for
own consumption and surplus for sale
2
1.0 Background: Pre-FTLRP Farm Structure,
Production Systems and Labour
• LSCF sector was largest formal employer in the
economy – 26% of paid labour force
• Smallholders – self employment for own production
• Thus agricultural labour: wage and non wage
• 350,000 full and part time farm workers were employed
in LSCF sector
• 10 -30% of migrant origin, but born in Zimbabwe
• Women comprised 65% of part time workers meaning
their jobs were more vulnerable to farm acquisitions
• F/wks and their families - +/- 2 million pple (10%)
3
1.0 Background: Pre-FTLRP Farm Structure,
Production Systems and Labour
• F/wks were least paid (1/3 of lowest paid in other
sectors), lacked coherent voice, amongst the poorest,
and strong organisation
• Wages averaged 24% of the PDL
• Appalling housing, health, schools and other basic
facilities
• Social service provision – responsibility of LSCF
• Insecure residential and agricultural land tenure rights
• Worker mistreatment rife in the LSCF sector
• Domestic government (Rutherford, 1995; 2001) –
mitemo yevarungu
4
Table 1.1: Disaggregation of Wage Employment in the LSCF Sector, 1983-1999
Year
Permanent Employees
Casual Employees
Total No. of
Employees
No.
% of total no of
workers
No.
% of total no of
workers
1983
166,411
76,3
51,761
27,3
218,172
1996
167,911
50,2
162,670
49,8
334,521
1997
172,926
51,0
166,086
49,0
339,012
1998
171,491
52,9
152,798
47,1
324,289
1999
169,257
52,5
153,423
47,5
322,680
Source: CSO (1984; 2001)
5
2.0 FTLRP and Outcomes
• In 2000, GoZ embarked on extensive land
reform programme
• 80% of former LSCF land acquired and
redistributed to a diverse base of beneficiaries
• Two models: A1 (smallholders) and A2
(commercial settlement scheme)
• Transformed agrarian structure from unequal bimodal to relatively more even tri-modal structure
(Moyo, 2004; Moyo and Yeros, 2005; Moyo,
2006)
6
2.0 FTLRP and Outcomes
• New land holding structure comprises approx.
150,000 families or farm units established on 10
million ha occupied by mainly white 4,500 LSCF
(approx 5,000 farms)
• Differentiated into small-, medium- and LSCF
• Small scale: farm units of below 50 ha each (A1140,000 units, communal and small-scale A2
holdings) – peasants and various working class
• Medium scale: 12,000 units averaging 700 ha –
urban middle class
• LSCF: - approx 5,000 units - +/- 1,500 ha in size
7
2.0 FTLRP and Outcomes
• Land tenure: based on state land
ownership through land use permits (A1)
and letters of land offer pending provision
of long term leases (25 years for
conservancies and 99 years for farming –
A2)
8
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• Pattern of impacts of FTLRP on former farm
workers was diverse and complex
• Varied widely among districts depending on the
nature of their agric. activities, scale of farms,
vicinity to CAs
• Both positive and negative effects of FTLRP on
farm workers in the LSCF sector
• Specific impacts assessed on three areas: (i)
Employment, (ii) Land allocation and (iii)
residency
9
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• (i) Employment and incomes
• Employment status is critical since it
defines the scope of their new livelihoods
• Losses in employment as well as job
retentions in the remaining LSCFs were
encountered
• Job losses could change after transitional
period – uptake of land and establishment
of production become normalised
10
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• (i) Employment and incomes
• Most studies tend to overestimate former farm
workers employed in the LSCF sector
(especially full-time)
• Some aspects understated (50% of jobs casual)
thus majority of job losses measured as
permanent
• Lack of differentiation of the job losses
• 50% (or 87,500 workers) of the full-time farm
workers retained their jobs – plantation estates
not affected by FTLRP
11
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• (i) Employment and incomes
• 15% were re-engaged in the new diverse farm structure
(model A2, state farms, remaining LSCF) mostly on a
casual basis, thus loss of key skills and experience
• Overally, there was net loss of former farm worker jobs
• Wages of the majority were below the PDL (around 50%)
before FTLRP – few viable livelihoods
• Minimum wages further eroded to around 7% of PDL due
to economic decline
• AIAS Field evidence showed that less than 25%
received the statutory minimum wages
• New and former farm workers in A2 less protected in
terms of wages and job security than in other LSCF
12
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• (ii) Land allocation to farm workers
• Farm workers not specified as a target in the FTLRP
policy document but were included in practice
• F/wk land resettlement varied at provincial and district
level since no land quota set
• +/- 10% of the former f/wk gained access to land during
the FTLRP nationally in A1
• AIAS district surveys – 12 – 15% beneficiaries in A1
scheme
• In some districts farm workers completely marginalised
13
3.0 Former Farm Workers Situation
• (iii) Access to Residency for farm workers
• GoZ policy – f/wks on acquired farms that have not been
re-engaged by other farmers, repatriated or not
absorbed elsewhere in the economy/communal lands
are entitled to temporary residency in farm compounds
• Policy seems not to have been widely & uniformly
communicated, thus tends to be interpreted different
• Field evidence - +/-200,000 workers still remain resident
in farm compounds irrespective of employment status
with insecure tenure
• Some A2 resist mandatory residency even contesting in
court
• Estimated 25% relocated to their communal areas
14
4.0 Farm Labour Market
• Structure of employment in New RAs
• Increased casualisation of wage
agricultural labour
• Less than 30% employed as permanent
workers in the new RAs
• Increase in the degree of self employment
as own producers though some use hired
labour
15
Table 2.4: Structure of agricultural employment in new resettlement areas, Zvimba
Labour form
No. of workers and
column % in
parenthesis
A1
A2
Total
Permanent workers
396
(17.6)*
(24.1)**
559
(22.7)*
(24.4)**
955
(20.3)*
(24.3)**
Casual workers
1245
(55.4)*
(75.9)**
1729
(70.3)*
(75.6)**
2974
(63.2)*
(75.7)**
Total hired labour
1641
(73.1)*
(100)**
2288
(93.0)*
(100)**
3929
(83.5)*
(100)**
Family labour
605
(26.9)*
173
(7.0)*
778
(16.5)*
Grand total labour
2246
(100)*
2461
(100)*
4707
(100)*
Hired labour
Source: AIAS Zvimba District Household Survey (2005)
*percentage of grand total labour **percentage of total hired labour
16
4.0 Farm Labour Market
• Structure of employment
• Wage labour accounted for bulk of agric. Workers with
remainder self employed
• Dominance of casual wage labour
• Reasons for casualisation:
• 1. Affordability of permanent wages and benefits – new
farmers only “starting up”
• 2. Peasants, majority of beneficiaries – reliant on family
labour
• 3. New farmer – farm worker conflicts
• 4. Commodity pricing policy – maize price controlled
(grown by the majority of new farmers)
• 5. Production constraints, mostly external
17
4.0 Farm Labour Market
• Structure of employment
• Gender dimension – women have
increased share in permanent employment
up to 40% in sample survey in Zvimba
District
• Prior to FTLRP accounted less than 10%
but majority in casual employment
• Casual employment – less secure not
covered statutory instruments
18
Table 4.2: Use of different forms of labour by resettlement model
Households utilizing:
A1
A2
Total
Permanent labour only
4
(1.9)*
(1.3)**
2
(2.0)*
(0.6)**
6
(1.9)*
(1.9)**
Casual labour only
18
(8.7)*
(5.8)**
12
(12.0)*
(3.9)**
30
(9.7)*
(9.7)**
All forms of hired labour only
22
(10.6)*
(7.1)**
29
(29.0)*
(9.4)**
51
(16.6)*
(16.6)**
Total Hired labour only
44
(21.2)*
(14.3)**
43
(43.0)*
(14.0)**
87
(28.2)*
(28.2)**
Family labour only
40
(19.2)*
(13.0)**
2
(2.0)*
(0.6)**
42
(13.6)*
(13.6)**
Family labour and permanent labour only
4
(1.9)*
(1.3)**
1
(1.0)*
(0.3)**
5
(1.6)*
(1.6)**
Family labour and casual labour only
65
(31.3)*
(21.1)**
15
(15.0)*
(4.9)**
80
(26.6)*
(26.6)**
Family labour and all forms of hired labour1
40
(19.2)*
(13.0)**
32
(32.0)*
(10.4)**
72
(23.4)*
(23.4)**
Total Family and hired labour2
109
(52.4)*
(35.4)**
48
(48.0)*
(15.6)**
157
(51.0)*
(51.0)**
No agricultural activities
15
(7.2)*
(4.9)**
7
(7.0)*
(2.3)**
22
(7.1)*
(7.1)**
N
208
100
308
Source: AIAS Zvimba Household Survey (2005) * column % ** % of total no. of hh.
19
4.0 Farm Labour Market
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wages and benefits
High variability of wages and benefits
Sample survey – less than 25% earning less than minimum wage
Minimum wage accounted for only 7% of PDL as at November 2005,
further deteriorated due hyperinflation
Also dynamic inconsistency – wages not responding to price
movements – minimum wage negotiated quarterly but inflation
50%/month
Not only amongst farm workers, but broader working class e.g.
during same period in commercial sector wages accounted for 33%
of PDL– economic decline
As such wage decline among f/wks needs to be understood in the
broader context of macroeconomic instability in Zimbabwe
As such farm jobs are currently non-viable
20
Table 4.3: Benefits provided to wage labour
No. of H/H
(N=252)
Benefits
% of total
Housing
56
22.2
Food rations
107
42.4
Fuel
4
1.6
Health insurance
17
6.7
Food security gardens
16
6.3
Grazing land
3
1.2
Annual leave
54
21.4
Protective clothing
43
17.1
Funeral assistance
32
12.6
Other
2
0.8
Source: AIAS Zvimba District Baseline Household Survey (2005)
21
4.0 Farm Labour Market
• Labour Relations
• New labour relations have emerged in the new
RAs
• Domestic government vs. social patronage
• Domestic government (Rutherford, 2001) – farm
workers governed by laws set by the white
farmers that were at times at variance with
national laws
• White farmers involved in issues that
transcended the employment contract to solve
social disputes – including physical punishments
22
4.0 Farm Labour Market
• Labour relations
• Social-Patronage systems – new farmers
recruiting distant relatives into workforce
• In such cases cordial relations exist
between employer and employee
• Extended family values engrained in such
relationships
23
5.0 Broad Employment Impacts
• Outside the narrow focus on former f/wk job
losses, reformed agrarian structure created
opportunity to expand agricultural employment
as potential employers have increased
especially among middle and large farm
holdings
• In smallholdings – utilisation of previously
underemployed labour in the peasant sector
• LSCF sector – underutilisation of land up to 30%
and capital intensive production systems that
had been displacing labour
• Unemployment problem – urban sector
24
Table 5.1: Comparative labour use intensities, Pre and Post FTLRP
Average
Farm Size
(Ha)
Labour use
intensity (no.
of workers per
cropped area
(Ha)
1990
1995
1999
2005
Before FTLRP
LSCF
2,000
0.53
0.69
0.73
Small Scale
Commercial
Farms
155
3.58
3.36
na
na
Old
resettlement
25
5.48
5.49
na
na
A1
30
-
-
-
3.33
A2
300
-
-
-
3.84
After FTLRP
Source: Ministry of Lands (2001); AIAS Zvimba District Household Surveys (2005)
25
5.0 Broad Employment Impacts
• Realisation of full employment potential dependent on resolution of
micro- and macro-issues to include commodity pricing policy, inputs
supply/regulations, inadequate forex supply, support to agroindustries, climate change as well as uncoordinated macroeconomic
policy
• As such current jobs tend to be casual with irregular wage level and
thus non-viable
• Redistribution of land = income redistribution leading to enlarged
demand patterns for goods and services resulting creation of
additional jobs in the non farm rural business sector
• Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa – “for every new farm job
created, 0.3 non-farm jobs will be created downstream (Van den
Brink, de Klerk and Binswanger, 1996)
• In Zimbabwe currently being hampered by macroeconomic decline
26
6.0 Policy Proposals
• Broad Policy Proposals
• 1. Restructuring of the policy framework in
support of f/wks
• Based upon integration of f/wks into rural
infrastructural (agri-villages) and social
protection programmes involving other
rural groups
27
6.0 Policy Proposals
• 2. Create institutional platform to promote above
national level policy framework to design,
implement and monitor projects
• Platform to include: GoZ (Min. of Labour, Rural
Housing; Lands; Agric.; Education; Health,
NSSA); Farmer and f/wk orgs; NGOs,
researchers (AIAS; UZ) and private sector
• Convenors: Min. of Labour, Housing and Lands
28
6.0 Policy Proposals Cont.
• 3. Create vehicle to finance rural and
economic infrastructure through direct
GoZ subsidies; Rural Social Security
pension fund; low interest credit and high
interest savings for rural poor and other
poverty transfers
• Specific elements which must be included
in this policy include:
29
6.0 Policy Proposals Cont.
• 6.1 Payment of severance packages
• Speed up valuation of farms and disbursements
of severance pays
• 6.2 Creation of agricultural villages
• Housing and other social services
• Can be incorporated under Garikayi
• 6.3 Farm worker identity and citizenship
• Mobile registration should be specifically
extended to cover f/wks
30
6.0 Policy Proposals Cont.
• 6.4 Access to residential land
• GoZ should aim to provide all f/wks with
access to land for residential purposes at
least 2 Ha (residency and food security
plots) for 100,000 families
• 6.5 Resettlement land to farm workers
• Allocate some of the unallocated to f/wks
31
6.0 Policy Proposal Cont.
• 6.6 Labour protection of farm workers
• Enforce existing laws on farm working conditions
(wage rates, benefits, leave, retrenchment etc.)
• New farmer training in labour relations
• (Re)training former and new f/wks, ensure
formal recognition of skills and appropriate
grading of f/wks
• Encourage and regulate evolution of farm labour
recruitment agencies and wide info
dissemination of worker skills and availability
32
6.0 Policy Proposal Cont.
• 6.7 Farm worker and Farmer Orgs
• Encourage new farmers to join existing national
unions to strengthen voice
• Farm worker trade unions to widen reach in A2
areas
• 6.8 Gender dimensions
• Incorporate gender based component into
restructured policy framework
• Aim: to enhance rights of women f/wks (land,
housing, security of tenure, labour rights etc)
33
7.0 Conclusion
• Greater scope for NGOs, GoZ and RDCs
involvement to address overall f/wk
population needs
34