Land reform in Zimbabwe

White settler farmers in Zimbabwe acquired land in the best agro-ecological zones that would generate good production yields, due to its soil quality and access to water.

“According to Thomas (2003: 693), the settlers acquired land in the best agro-ecological zones that would generate good production yields, due to its soil quality and access to water.”

The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 allocated the natives in generally poor, remote and inadequate fixed reserves, while Europeans were allocated alienated lands of the natives.

“The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 allocated the natives in generally poor, remote and inadequate fixed reserves. The Europeans were allocated alienated lands of the natives (Thomas, 2003: 694).”

Donor countries became wary of offering more financial assistance, which meant Zimbabwe had to rely on loans to support the land-reform initiative.

“This resulted in donor countries being wary of offering more financial assistance, which meant that Zimbabwe had to rely on loans to support the landreform initiative.”

Enormous land pressure was mounting in the communal areas between 1961 and 1977, since the area under cultivation increased at the expense of grazing, although cattle numbers still increased.

“Enormous land pressure was mounting in the CAs between 1961 and 1977, since the area under cultivation increased at the expense of grazing, although cattle numbers still increased (Thomas, 2003: 694).”

The Morris-Carter Commission of 1925 was established to develop a planning framework that would ensure the emergence of Zimbabwe as a self-sustaining British colony.

“The Morris-Carter Commission of 1925 was established, and they were required to develop a planning framework that would ensure the emergence of Zimbabwe; this framework was to be a self-sustaining British colony (Thomas, 2003: 693).”

The third phase based on expropriation had detrimental outcomes, including disinvestment in the country and decline in markets which impacted on the socio-economic well-being of the country.

“The third phase based on expropriation had detrimental outcomes, including disinvestment in the country and decline in markets which impacted on the socio-economic well-being of the country (Thomas, 2003: 703).”