Moving forward in Zimbabwe - Brooks World Poverty Institute - The ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Moving forward in Zimbabwe Reducing poverty and promoting growth Figure 1.1: Natural farming regions of Zimbabwe. In the 1960s an official study of the relationship between physical attributes and farming potential was published that divided the country into five agro-ecological regions. This has since been adopted as the official indicator of natural farming potential. Figure 1.1 shows the five natural farming regions while Table 1.1 shows the main features of the regions. We can draw out four key points pertinent to this report. First, more than fifty per cent of the country lies in regions classified as being generally unsuitable for dry land farming without additional investment in water technology. Regions IV and V were deemed too dry for crop production without irrigation. Small grains, particularly millet and sorghum, could be produced in some parts of this region; although seasonal and periodic droughts are a common feature afflicting most farm based livelihoods pursuits. With changing production practices and innovations from the early 1980s, regions IV and V have seen increased production of high value tourism products based on wildlife farming (Moyo, 2000). Secondly, only 38 per cent of the country was deemed to have natural farming potential. Region I was seen as suitable for specialised and diversified farming, especially activities related to forestry, fruit and intensive livestock production. Region II was deemed suitable for diversified farming that includes production of flue-cured tobacco, maize, cotton, sugar, beans, coffee, sorghum, groundnuts, seed maize, barley and related horticultural crops. It was also seen to have potential for irrigated winter wheat, poultry, beef and dairy production. Some parts of Natural Region III with suitable terrain were seen as being marginally suitable for semiintensive farming, especially the production of grains and livestock. The implication therefore is that the 38 per cent of the country that is less prone to seasonal and periodic droughts is highly desirable for those pursuing agriculture-based livelihoods. It must be added, though, that the issue of carrying capacity must be viewed in relation to the financial capital and technology available to users of the land. Where users apply modern and higher productivity technologies, the carrying capacity of the area can be higher than situations where subsistence low productivity technology is used, as is the case in much of Zimbabwe. Farming technologies in communal areas have not changed significantly over the past hundred years, and have remained effectively non-mechanised, 12
Moving forward in Zimbabwe Reducing poverty and promoting growth Table 1.1: Main features of the five natural farming regions of Zimbabwe. Natural region Area (ha) Per cent Main features Natural agricultural potential I 613,233 1.56 II 7,343,059 18.68 III 6,854,958 17.43 IV 13,010,036 33.03 V 10,288,036 26.2 Rainfall in excess of 1050mm precipitation in all months of the year, relatively low temperatures. Rainfall between 700mm-1050mm per year mainly in summer. Rainfall between 500-700, infrequent but heavy falls of rainfall, seasonal droughts, relatively high temperatures. Rainfall between 450-600mm per year, frequent seasonal droughts, relatively high temperatures. Rainfall less than 500mm, erratic. Northern Lowveld may have higher rainfall but topography and poor soils make it unsuitable for arable agriculture. Specialised and diversified farming. Forestry, fruit, intensive livestock, tea, coffee. Intensive farming. Crops and intensive livestock production. Semi-intensive farming. Livestock, fodder and staple and cash crops like maize, tobacco, cotton. Semi-extensive farming. Livestock farming, drought tolerant crops. Extensive farming. Extensive cattle ranching, wildlife farming, crops only possible with irrigation. VI 1,220,254 3.1 Unsuitable for any type of agricultural land use. Total 39,329,576 100 Source: Vincent and Thomas, 1962. labour intensive and of low productivity, hence the policy challenge of inadequate rural incomes. Thirdly, where a family is located has significant implications for its capacity to make a living off the land. Table 1.2 shows the interplay between population distribution, land use and agroecological potential. With up to 74 per cent of all communal lands located in the drier Regions IV and V, it is not too difficult to see why this marginality, when combined with high population densities and relatively basic production technologies, has implications for the ability of these families to make a living and stay out of poverty. Consequently, if poverty is to be addressed either future policy efforts need to influence the movement of rural agricultural activity away from the more fragile zones, or new technologies will have to be found to make these areas more productive. A fourth point to note about these bio-regions is that the analysis was based on natural farming potential alone. This, however, disregards other livelihood activities that can be pursued outside agriculture. The country is endowed with mineral resources that, apart from generating foreign currency and formal sector employment, have over the past decade emerged as an important livelihood diversification strategy by rural households – mainly through artisanal mining. 1.3 Economic context of development in Zimbabwe The economy exhibits what Mhone (2000) aptly describes as segmentation and enclavity typical of most post-settler colonial states in Southern Africa. Segmentation refers to the existence of an urban and a rural segment of the economy. The urban economy is characterised largely by manufacturing and value addition while the rural sector is mostly about raw material production. The term enclavity refers to the co-existence of a regulated formal sector Table 1.2: Distribution of population by natural region in communal and commercial farmland. Natural region I II III IV V Total Communal areas Population in natural region, x10 3 51.7 625.5 939.9 1857.7 798.0 4272.8 % of population in communal area 1.2 14.6 22.0 43.5 18.7 100.0 Total area, km 2 x10 3 0.9 16.0 31.1 78.3 44.2 170.5 Population density, people per km 2 57.4 39.1 30.2 23.7 18.1 25.1 Commercial farmland Population in natural region, x10 3 172.1 735.6 261.5 243.9 144.1 1557.2 % of population in communal area 11.1 47.2 16.8 15.7 9.3 100.0 Total area, km 2 x10 3 8500 42.3 37.9 46.1 32.9 167.7 Population density, people per km 2 20.2 17.4 6.9 5.3 4.4 9.3 Source: Mehretu and Mutambirwa, 2006. 13
Page 1 and 2: The University of Manchester Brooks
Page 3 and 4: Moving forward in Zimbabwe Reducing
Page 19: Moving forward in Zimbabwe Reducing
Page 71 and 72:
Moving forward in Zimbabwe Reducing
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
show all

Moving forward in Zimbabwe - Brooks World Poverty Institute - The ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?