ulSCLAlML8: 1he flndlngs, lnLerpreLaLlons and concluslons expressed ln Lhls paper are Lhose of

Lhe auLhors and do noL necessarlly reflecL Lhe pollcles or vlews of un Women, unlCLl or Lhe
unlLed naLlons.


!""#$%%&'( &'$*+!,&-&$%
!"# %#&'( )* ("# +),(-./01 2#3#4)56#7( 89#7:& &7: ("# ;<(<'# =# =&7( *)' 844
"#$%&# '()*&+,- .$/01#+&+,$/







=>?@A 8A2 8BB@CC !> D8A2 E@;>E?F 8 B8C@
>; G=@EH EHE8D 2IC!EIB!F JI?K8K=@

Papplson Chlkova and Cresencla Madebwe
Mldlands SLaLe unlverslLy, 8ag 9033, Cweru
!anuary , 2006

8L,('&M(
The Zimbabwes land reform dates back to 1980 when the country attained its independence.
ln a bld Lo aLLaln access Lo land beLween Lhe blacks and whlLes, Lhe governmenL of Zlmbabwe
embarked on lasL 1racL Land 8eform programme ln 2000 LhaL was characLerlzed by vlolence
and land lnvaslon. 1he sLudy revealed LhaL Lhe vlolence LhaL characLerlzed Lhe land reform
programme resulLed ln gender lmbalance on Lhe access Lo land as Lhere was no proLecLlon for
women resulLlng ln less Lhan 30 geLLlng access Lo land. 1he perlod ln whlch Lhe farms were
lnvaded and Lhe Llme Laken Lo lssue offer leLLers was Loo long and women were noL able Lo
bear Lhe hardshlps of llvlng ln harsh condlLlons. 1he land reform dld noL Lake lnLo conslderaLlon
Lhe level of educaLlon of new farmers, 23 of Lhe reseLLled farmers who are women had no
educaLlon and Lhey falled Lo compleLe Lhe appllcaLlon forms. 1he dlsLance LhaL was Lravelled Lo
farms was Loo long, few women were able Lo walk long dlsLances. MosL households are female
headed households and Lhe programme dld noL Lake cognlzance of Lhls group as Lhey dld noL
have Lhe opporLunlLy Lo leave Lhelr homes for farm lnvaslons.










0F I7('):<M(N)7
1he land quesLlon ln Zlmbabwe has been a source of pollLlcal confllcL ln Zlmbabwe slnce 1930
when Lhe Land ApporLlonlng AcL was enacLed resulLlng ln Lhousands of Zlmbabwe belng moved
ln areas reserved for naLlve Afrlcans. 1he problem became more promlnenL when Lhe whlLe
8hodeslan governmenL unlLarlly declared lLs lndependence from 8rlLaln ln 1963. 1he Land
ApporLlonlng AcL resulLed ln 1,081 000 accesslng 29.8 of land (28 391 606) and a populaLlon
of 3000 Luropean seLLlers belng allocaLed 31 of Lhe ferLlle land. Shaw, (2003) asserLs LhaL Lhe
whlLe, large-scale commerclal farmers (less Lhan 1 percenL of Lhe populaLlon) occupled 43
percenL of all agrlculLural land, of whlch 73 percenL was found ln Lhe mosL agrlculLurally
producLlve areas. 1hls lmbalance on land led Lo Lhe proLracLed war of llberaLlon durlng Lhe
1970s. ln 1980, afLer Zlmbabwe has aLLalned lLs lndependence, Lhe counLry slgned a LancasLer
Pouse agreemenL LhaL prohlblL Lhe new governmenL Lo engage ln any compulsory land
acqulslLlon and allows Lhe governmenL Lo pay adequaLe compensaLlon under Lhe Wllllng buyer,
Wllllng seller approach. ln 1992, Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe Land AcqulslLlon AcL gave Lhe
governmenL powers Lo acqulre land for reseLLlemenL sub[ecL Lo Lhe paymenL of a falr
compensaLlon. Accordlng Lo Lhe CenLre for Pouslng 8lghLs and LvlcLlons (2001), ln Lhe flrsL
decade, Lhe governmenL acqulred 40 of Lhe LargeL 8 mllllon hecLares, reseLLllng more Lhan 30
000 famllles on more Lhan 3 mllllon hecLares. 8y Lhe end of Lhe second decade of
lndependence, less Lhan one mllllon hecLares of land was acqulred for dlsLrlbuLlon durlng Lhe
1990s and fewer Lhan 20000 famllles reseLLled. ln 1997, Lhe governmenL has reseLLled 71000
famllles agalnsL a LargeL of 162 000 on almosL 3 mllllon hecLares of land. 8y 1999, eleven mllllon
hecLares of land was sLlll under 4300 whlLe farmers and Lhls Lrlggered Lhe lasL Lrack land
reform programme where Lhe land was lnvaded for Lhe allocaLlon Lo Lhe blacks leadlng Lo Lhe
amendmenL of Lhe Land AcqulslLlon AcL 1992 ln 2001 Lo allow a free land acqulslLlon by Lhe
governmenL wlLhouL any compensaLlon. under Lhe amended Land AcqulslLlon AcL, Lhe
ownershlp of deslgnaLed land was Lransferred lmmedlaLely, lrrespecLlve of any courL challenge,
Lo Lhe acqulrlng auLhorlLy and serves as a nlneLy- day evlcLlon noLlce for Lhe prevlous owner.

1he Zlmbabwe populaLlon ls consLlLuLed of abouL 32 belng female and 86 depend on land
for llvellhoods for Lhelr llvellhoods (lAC, 2003). 8haLasara, (2001) polnLed ouL LhaL Lhe land
quesLlon ln Zlmbabwe has always been pollLlcal and gendered. Whereas land reform was
necessary ln Lhe conLexL of hlghly unequal land ownershlp paLLerns and poverLy, Lhe lasL 1rack
Land 8eform rogramme dlmlnlshed opporLunlLles or spaces for women Lo be empowered and
shrunk Lhe democraLlc spaces for genulne parLlclpaLlon of women ln Lhe developmenL process
by denylng Lhem rlghLs Lo land, wldenlng gender lnequallLles and ulLlmaLely falllng Lo allevlaLe
Lhelr poverLy. Powever, Lhe ConvenLlon on Lhe LllmlnaLlon of All lorms of ulscrlmlnaLlon
agalnsL Women (CLuAW) prohlblLs any form of dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL women and Lhe 8el[lng
ueclaraLlon and laLform for AcLlon 1993 fosLer Lhe promoLlon of equallLy, developmenL and
peace from a gender perspecLlve. Powever, Lhls ls agalnsL Lhe Lhlrd Mlllennlum uevelopmenL
Coal (MuC) LhaL promoLes gender equallLy and empowers women. 1he goal ls one of elghL
MuCs drawn from Lhe Mlllennlum ueclaraLlon adopLed by 189 naLlons ln 2000. 1he goals
address the worlds main developmenL challenges, wlLh a Llmellne for achlevemenL by 2013.
1he Mlllennlum ueclaraLlon bullds on Lhe mosL lmporLanL developmenL commlLmenLs made aL
lnLernaLlonal conferences and summlLs ln Lhe 1990s. lL recognlzes Lhe llnks beLween gender
equallLy and developmenL, especlally poverLy reducLlon. 1hls noLlon was sLrengLhened aL Lhe
2003 World SummlL, whlch referred Lo Lhe cenLrallLy of gender equallLy Lo human securlLy and
human developmenL. 1he ouLcome documenL from Lhe SummlL conLalned commlLmenLs on
labour rlghLs and land and properLy rlghLs for women, as well as on access Lo reproducLlve
healLh care and Lhe ellmlnaLlon of vlolence agalnsL women.
.F ?#("):)4)9O
.F0 C(<:O 8'#&
1hls sLudy was conducLed ln Cweru rural dlsLrlcL. 1he dlsLrlcL ls locaLed ln Lhe Mldlands provlnce
of Zlmbabwe. 1he dlsLrlcL ls a perl-urban of Cweru Lown LhaL recelves an average of 1000mm.
Crop culLlvaLlon and llvesLock producLlon (ualry farmlng) are Lhe ma[or sources of llvellhood.
1he solls ln Cweru dlsLrlcL are malnly loam, characLerlzed by hlgh waLer reLenLlon.
.F. C&654N79 ,NP# &7: 2&(& M)44#M(N)7 N7,('<6#7(,
A LoLal of 300 households were sampled and lnLervlewed represenLlng 10 of Lhe households
ln Lhe sampled wards. 8 wards were sampled for lnLervlews whlch are ward 2, 4, 6 8, 10, 12, 14
and 16. 1hese wards were sampled Lhrough sLraLlfled random sampllng meLhod where wards
sampled were caLegorlsed accordlng Lo Lhe dlsLance from Lhe ueparLmenL of Lands and
8eseLLlemenL offlces where offer leLLers were lssued. urposlve sampllng was used Lo ldenLlfy
key lnformanLs.

CuesLlonnalres were admlnlsLered Lo households and were used Lo sollclL lnformaLlon on soclo
-economlc background, meLhodologles and Lechnlques LhaL were used for land reseLLlemenL,
dlsLance Lravelled Lo Lhe ueparLmenL of Lands offlces and Lhe perlod LhaL were Laken Lo process
offer leLLers. CLher challenges such as lnfrasLrucLure and Lhe avallablllLy of soclal servlces ln Lhe
area. 8oLh closed and open ended quesLlons were used ln Lhls sLudy. Peads of households were
lnLervlewed durlng Lhe household survey.

ln depLh lnLervlews were done wlLh key lnformanLs, lncludlng one respondenL from Lhe 8ural
ulsLrlcL Councll (8uC), ueparLmenL of Lands and 8eseLLlemenL, MlnlsLry of AgrlculLure,
MechanlzaLlon and lrrlgaLlon uevelopmenL, ulsLrlcL AdmlnlsLraLor and Lhree Chlefs. uaLa LhaL
was sorL Lhrough Lhese lnLervlews lnclude, Lhe perlod LhaL was Laken Lo process offer leLLers.
ollcy lssues on land reseLLlemenL and gender conslderaLlon, Lhe lnvolvemenL of women ln Lhe
selecLlon process. 1hree focus group dlscusslons (luCs) were conducLed ln Ward 2, 6 and ward
8 , each group consLlLuLlng of 13 parLlclpanLs. 1he focus group dlscusslons focused on
meLhodologles and Lechnlques LhaL were used for land reseLLlemenL, dlsLance Lravelled Lo Lhe
ueparLmenL of Lands, Lhe perlod LhaL were Laken Lo process offer leLLers, gender lssues and
land reform and Lhe Lransparency of Lhe land dlsLrlbuLlon exerclse. Some of Lhe lnformaLlon
from households lnLervlews, key lnformanLs lnLervlews and luCs were corroboraLe Lhrough
fleld observaLlons. 1he fleld vlslLs enabled Lhe observaLlon of seLLlemenL paLLerns and dlsLance
Lraveled Lo Lhe nearesL schools, cllnlcs and shops. Analysls of daLa was underLaken uslng Lhe
SofLware ackage for soclal sclence (SSS).
QF 2N,M<,,N)7,
QF0 G#7#'&4 L&MR9')<7: )* ("# ;&,( ('&MR 4&7: '#*)'6 5')9'&66#
1he sLudy revealed LhaL Lhe fasL Lrack land reform programme was characLerlzed by farm
lnvaslons and vlolence, Lhe process LhaL was spear headed by war veLerans. 1he process was
characLerlzed by vlolence as some of Lhe whlLe farmers were adamanL noL Lo release farms.
AlLhough Lhere was enough pollLlcal senslLlzaLlon abouL Lhe ob[ecLlve of Lhe land reform
programme, people were noL able Lo secure land because of Lhe naLure and Lhe processes
under whlch Lhe land dlsLrlbuLlon was done. 1he process of land redlsLrlbuLlon lncluded
lnvaslon of land and Lhen dlsLrlbuLlon Lo Lhe new seLLlers. 1here was a commlLLee LhaL was
responslble for land redlsLrlbuLlon composed on Lhe 8ural ulsLrlcL Councll, MlnlsLry of Lands
and 8eseLLlemenL, MlnlsLry of AgrlculLure and Lhe ulsLrlcL AdmlnlsLraLor. Powever, Lhe
commlLLee was consLlLuLed of 10 women Lhereby deplcLlng a gender lmbalance ln Lhe
declslon maklng process. Cffer leLLers were lssued ouL afLer Lhe occupaLlon of land by land
seekers.

uurlng focus group dlscusslons, 90 of Lhe parLlclpanLs polnLed ouL LhaL people who were
found on Lhe land were glven Lhe flrsL prlorlLy Lo be offered land Lhrough offer leLLers and Lhen
oLher preferences were Lhen glven Lo Lhose who had applled Lhrough Lhe normal processes and
were noL able Lo lnvade Lhe land. 1he facL Lhe land reform programme was done vlolenLly
exposed women Lo vlolence, abuse and LorLure. AbouL 60 of Lhe women who had been
allocaLed land had Lhelr farms Laken because of Lhe naLure of Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon as Lhey Lhere was
no securlLy of Lenure Lo proLecL women who have been allocaLed land. 30 of women were
land allocaLed ln marglnal zones and ln areas LhaL are vulnerable Lo anlmals such as Monkeys
and 8aboons hence acLlng as buffer zones for Lhe land of Lhelr male counLer parLs.
1he fasL Lrack land reform programme redlsLrlbuLed exerclse had Lwo schemes, Lhe A1 scheme
whlch was deslgned for subslsLence farmlng provldlng for vlllaglsaLlon and seml communal
ownershlp and Lhe A2 scheme whlch was meanL for commerclal farmlng. Zlkhall, (2004) alludes
LhaL Lhe lasL 1rack Land 8eform rogramme comprlsed of Lwo models: Model A1 ls lnLended Lo
decongesL communal areas and ls LargeLed aL land-consLralned farmers ln communal areas.
1hls model ls based on exlsLlng communal area organlzaLlon, whereby peasanLs produce malnly
for subslsLence. Model A2, on Lhe oLher hand, ls a commerclal seLLlemenL scheme comprlslng
small-, medlum-, and large-scale commerclal seLLlemenLs.
1he records aL Lhe MlnlsLry of Lands, AgrlculLure and 8eseLLlemenL lndlcaLed LhaL 90 of
women beneflclarles were offered A1 pleces of land, whlle only 10 were offered A2 ploLs. 1he
land reform pollcy dld noL Lake women serlously as key economlc players capable of
conLrlbuLlng slgnlflcanLly Lo Lhe Cross naLlonal roducL alongslde Lhelr male counLerparLs as
belng evldenced by a large populaLlon under Lhe A1 reseLLlemenL model.
QF. D#3#4 )* #:<M&(N)7
Accordlng Lo flgure 1, 10 of male beneflclarles ended Lhelr educaLlon aL prlmary level, wlLh
Lhe same flgure applylng for Lhelr female counLerparLs. As for secondary educaLlon, 23 of Lhe
males managed Lo aLLaln a secondary level educaLlon, whlle only 3 of Lhe female land
beneflclarles managed Lo geL secondary educaLlon. WlLh respecL Lo LerLlary educaLlon, 10 of
Lhe male beneflclarles had a LerLlary quallflcaLlon, whlle only 3 of Lhe female beneflclarles
managed Lo geL Lo LerLlary level. AbouL 23 of female beneflclarles had no educaLlon whllsL
10 of males have no educaLlon as well. 1he varlances on educaLlon across gender llnes was
reflecLed ln Lhe challenges experlenced by Lhe female beneflclarles ln lnLerpreLlng clauses on
offer leLLers as well as Llme Laken Lo flll Lhe appllcaLlon forms when compared Lo Lhe males.
PlsLory has shown LhaL mosL women have phobla when lL comes Lo appllcaLlon forms especlally
when Lhey are wrlLLen ln engllsh because of Lhe llllLeracy raLes among Lhls caLegory of Lhe
populaLlon.





;N9<'# 0

2)3)# $4 )51-&+,$/ 5,0&667)6&+)5 %8 6)/5)7
MosL females also reflecLed llLLle knowledge on leglslaLlon wlLh respecL Lo land-reform as
compared Lo Lhelr male counLerparLs. uue Lo Lhe llLlglous naLure of Lhe land reform processes,
women are Lhus lefL vulnerable Lo evlcLlons as some of Lhe evlcLed whlLe farmers were sLlll
conLesLlng Lhe evlcLlons Lhrough Lhe courLs. 1hus women wlLh llmlLed legal knowledge and
llmlLed appreclaLlon of Lhe due processes for recourse Lhrough legal and formal channels, have
someLlmes been lefL vulnerable Lo Lhe processes.
LlmlLed educaLlon also manlfesLed lLself ln llmlLed knowledge ln relevanL agronomlc pracLlces,
whlch undermlned producLlon levels aL women owned pleces of land. 1hls was normally due Lo
wrong Llmlng of seasons, poor knowledge on relevanL crops Lo be grown as well as llmlLed
knowledge on crop nuLrlLlon and crop proLecLlon. 1he slLuaLlon was exacerbaLed by llmlLed
exLenslon servlces by Lhe ueparLmenL of AgrlculLural, 1echnlcal and LxLenslon Servlces
(AC8l1Lx) ln Lhe reseLLlemenLs slnce Lhe evlcLed farmers had ln-house faclllLles and depended
on Lhelr assoclaLlons. 1hus Lhe slLuaLlon reflecLed women reseLLled farmers as unproducLlve
and Lherefore were noL prlorlLlzed ln Lhe allocaLlon of land.
QFQ D&7: :N,('NL<(N)7 LO 9#7:#'
llgure 2 presenL access Lo land by Lhe beneflclarles durlng Lhe lasL 1rack Land 8eform
rogramme by gender. AbouL 73 male had access Lo land whlle 23 were female. Man had
Lhelr names wrlLLen on offer leLLers even Lhough Lhey had spouses as accordlng Lo Lhe
cusLomary law LhaL men are holders of Lhe land. uurlng focus group dlscusslons, women
hlghllghLed LhaL 30 of women could noL access Lhe land because of long queue and prolonged
processes durlng land dlsLrlbuLlon. lrom Lhe dlscusslons, lndlcaLlons glven were LhaL 40 of Lhe
women falled Lo Lurn up for offer leLLers due Lo Lhelr domesLlc responslblllLles whlch lnclude
care-glvlng. 1he governmenL does noL have a clear pollcy on gender and land reform as
evldenced by commenLs from Lhe Lhen MlnlsLer of Lands, AgrlculLure and 8ural 8eseLLlemenL
(ur Made) LhaL Since the family is traditionally made up of two partners, the government
cannoL say whlch parLner should come forward Lo apply for land. Such speclflcs musL be lefL Lo
the families to decide (Women and Land Lobby Croup, 2001). Powever, accordlng Lo Lhe
Puman 8lghLs WaLch (2002), Lhe process of land dlsLrlbuLlon lLself ralses serlous concerns.
1here was parLy pollLlcal conLrol of access Lo Lhe forms for applylng for land and parLlsan
dlscrlmlnaLlon ln Lhe allocaLlon of ploLs.
;N9<'# .

2&/5 5,0+7,%1+,$/ %8 6)/5)7
1he oLher challenge faced by women was LhaL Lhe land reform process was characLerlzed by
vlolence so women were noL lnvolved ln pollLlcal vlolence as Lhey could noL wlLhsLand Lhe
Lenslons. Mpahlo, (2003) noLed LhaL of Lhe 25,569 war veterans families resettled; only 2,221
were female headed household. 8uL, Chlngarande, (2004) asserL LhaL land leases from Lhe
perlod 1986 Lo 2001 have been malnly lssued Lo males. 1he ma[orlLy of beneflclarles under Lhe
governmenL publlc leaslng program were males, accounLlng for 76 of all LransacLlons, whlle
females, as sole owners were [usL fewer Lhan 6 . uurlng Lhe lasL 1rack Land 8eform
rogramme, women were noL able Lo sleep aL Lhe farms durlng lnvaslons because of Lhe unruly
naLure and Lhe chaoLlc meLhods of Lhe land lnvaslons. 1hus women were suscepLlble Lo vlces
such as rape and robberles as Lhelr accommodaLlon were lnsecure. 3 cases of rape and 2 cases
of robbery were reporLed durlng Lhe dlscusslons. Accordlng Lo Lhe Puman 8lghLs WaLch 8eporL,
2002, The response of the law enforcement agents, that is the police to human rights
vlolaLlons ln reseLLlemenL areas was sald Lo be slow and below expectations
QFS 8MM#,, () ,)MN&4 ,#'3NM#,
llgure 3 shows LhaL 20 of Lhe people who were reseLLled Lravel 1 Lo 10 km Lo access baslc
servlces, 30 Lravelled Lhe beLween 11 Lo 20 km whllsL 30 Lravelled a dlsLance of 21 km Lo 30
km. 1he dlsLance LhaL was Lravelled Lo access baslc servlces were Loo long and women were
noL able Lo walk such long dlsLances. uurlng households survey, 30 of women lnLervlewed
polnLed ouL LhaL durlng Lhe lnlLlal lnvaslon of farms, Lhe percenLage of women Lo men who had
come Lo occupy Lhe land ln 2002 was 40 for women and 60 for men buL due Lo Lhe harsh
condlLlons such as ln access Lo soclal servlces such as shops, cllnlcs and schools ln Lhe areas
resulLed ln Lhe number dwlndllng ln 2003 Lo 10 women and 33 men. ln farms where Lhere
were farm houses and lnfrasLrucLure, men who were usually (pollLlclans) were allocaLed such
properLles. 1he sLudy also esLabllshed LhaL 20 of Lhe ploLs LhaL were allocaLed Lo women
were never developed buL raLher abandoned, Lhls may be due Lo poor condlLlons of llvlng and
lack of lnfrasLrucLure. uue Lo Lhe burden of care glvlng LhaL ls on women, lack of schools and
cllnlcs from Lhe new reseLLlemenLs presenLed challenges Lo Lhe conLlnued sLay of women ln Lhe
reseLLlemenL areas. 1hus Lhe only secLlons of women who survlved ln Lhe new reseLLlemenLs
were malnly Lhose from Lhe whlLe garmenL secLs churches who do noL belleve ln access Lo
modern medlcaLlon and access Lo educaLlon by Lhelr chlldren.
;N9<'# Q

9,0+&/-) +$ +() /)&7)0+ 0$-,&# 0)73,-)0 :0-($$#0; -#,/,-0 &/5 0($<<,/6 &7)&=
llgure 4 shows reseLLleemnL of people accordlng Lo Lhelr place of orlgln. AbouL 23 of Lhe
people who were reseLLled were from Mldlands provlnce, 20 from Lhe Mldlands provlnce, 3
from Parare, 10 were from 8ulawayo, 23 were from MaLabeleland, 10 were from
Mashonaland whlllsL 3 were from Manlcaland provlnce. 1he facL LhaL Lhe land reform
programme excluded Lhe role of LradlLlonal leaders LhaL lnclude chlefs was Lhe ma[or reason
why women could noL have access Lo land. Chlefs hlghllghLed LhaL lf Lhey had been glven Lhe
Lask Lo redlsLrlbuLe land Lhey would have ensured gender malnsLreaamlng ln Lhe programme
as their policies are gender sensitivy. Chiefs role ln Lhe selecLlon process was very llmlLLed and
perlpherlal and Lhe 8ural ulsLrlcL Councll played a ma[or role ln land dlsLrlbuLlon hence ma[or
dlsparlLy ln gender composlLlon for women accesslng land. 1hls mlghLy have been due Lo lack
of a clear pollcy on gender by Lhe 8ural ulsLrlcL Councll. 1he oLher facLor LhaL consLralned
women Lo have access Lo land ls LhaL women who were resldlng ln Lhe dlsLrlcL were noL glven
Lhe flrsL prlorlLy for selecLlon ln Lhe land redlsLrublLlon exerclse as Lhey faced compeLlLlon from
oLher provlnces.
;N9<'# S

>--)00 +$ #&/5 ,/ "?)71 5,0+7,-+ <)7 <7$3,/-)
QF1 D&7: E#*)'6T 89'NM<4(<'&4 +'):<M(N)7 &7: G#7:#'
Slnce Lhe lncepLlon of land reform ln year 2000, agrlculLural producLlon sLaLlsLlcs show LhaL
womens productivity on newly resettled farms was low as compared to their male
counLerparLs. 1he anomaly has been due Lo a number of facLors LhaL were hlghllghLed durlng
Lhe sLudy. uurlng focus group dlscusslons women hlghllghLed LhaL, mosL men accessed already
arable land, whlle women were lefL Lo clear vlrgln land whlch needed subsLanLlal resources Lo
geL lnLo agrlculLural producLlon. Men also managed Lo galn qulck access Lo machlnery and
lnfrasLrucLure lefL by Lhe whlLe farmers, whlle women had Lo rely on personally acqulred
equlpmenL usually meanL for small holder farmlng. uaLa from households lnLervlews shows
LhaL men galned easler access Lo concesslonary lnpuL faclllLles provlded by governmenL aL Lhe
expense of women, leavlng women Lo geL more expenslve lnpuLs on Lhe open markeL. ln Lerms
of access Lo fundlng, women were also found Lo be dlsadvanLaged when compared Lo men as
Lhey do noL have collaLeral, lack flnanclal llLeracy crlLlcal for developlng fundlng proposals and
Lhey are generally consldered as a rlsky caLegory by LradlLlonal flnanclal lnsLlLuLlons. SLaLlsLlcs
from Lhe AgrlculLural 8ank of Zlmbabwe (Agrlbank), lndlcaLed LhaL ln 2003, only 0.3 of
appllcaLlons done by women recelved fundlng, whlle for men, 20 of Lhe appllcaLlons recelved
fundlng (fleld daLa).
1he dlsparlLles can be explalned largely by Lhe fallure Lo LargeL women as a speclal group ln Lhe
lasL 1rack Land 8eform rogramme pollcy and lmplemenLaLlon phase. lurLhermore, many men
Lhan women have aLLended MasLer larmer 1ralnlng, Lhus many poor and uneducaLed rural
women could noL quallfy for Lhe model. Coebel, (2003) ls of Lhe vlew LhaL women, as an
ldenLlLy of capable modern producers, have been consldered lnellglble for modern
developmenL ln Lhe lasL 1rack Land 8eform rogramme. 1herefore, Lhese are clear cases of
capablllLy deprlvaLlon as women were allocaLed much less land ln all models and capablllLy
fallures as Lhey cannoL produce beyond mere subslsLence, Lhus, Lhelr llvellhoods remaln
unsecure.
SF B)7M4<,N)7
lrom Lhe flndlngs presenLed ln Lhls paper, Zlmbabwe ls aL rlsk of falllng Lo aLLaln MuCs 1, 2 and
3. 1hls ls because when more Lhan 32 of women ls noL glven prlorlLy ln Lhe allocaLlon of a
crlLlcal resource such as land and also sldellned ln Lhe provlslon of caplLal equlpmenL and funds,
Lhere ls a serlous LhreaL on Lhe food securlLy and Lhe poverLy allevlaLlon efforLs belng
underLaken by Lhe governmenL and lLs parLners. 1he proponenLs and lmplemenLers of Lhe lasL
1rack Land 8eform rogramme were shorL slghLed ln glvlng women spaces, (referrlng Lo land),
wlLhouL addresslng facLors LhaL would lmprove Lhe uLlllzaLlon of land by women. Women ln
Zlmbabwe sLlll have undeflned and unsecured land rlghLs hence Lhelr conLrol on land and lLs
produce ls compromlsed (8haLasara, 2001). 1herefore Lhere ls need for a dellberaLe efforL Lo
Lake women as key players ln bulldlng Lhe naLlonal producLlvlLy base as Lhese consLlLuLe more
Lhan half of Lhe enLlre populaLlon. ln such a case, prlorlLy musL be glven Lo women when
allocaLlng resources such as land and durlng Lhe provlslon of lnpuLs such seed, ferLlllzer and
pesLlcldes.

lurLhermore Lhere musL be a dellberaLe pollcy Lo make Lhe envlronmenL conduclve Lo women
parLlclpaLlon by provldlng for Lhelr safeLy and accommodaLlng Lhelr roles as care glvers ln
famllles Lhrough provlslon of soclal servlces such as healLh and educaLlon. 1hus Lhe plannlng for
exerclses such as Lhe Land 8eform rogramme musL have a framework for provlslon of soclal
servlces for lnsLance by sLarLlng wlLh saLelllLe schools and cllnlcs and upgradlng Lhem Lo fully-
fledged sLaLus wlLh Llme as people become seLLled. WaLer and sanlLaLlon lssues also need Lo be
Laken cognlzance of Lo prevenL ouLbreaks of dlseases such as cholera and Lyphold. ln Lhe same
veln, gender senslLlve lndlcaLors and gender analysls should be deslgned and co-opLed lnLo
pollcles deallng wlLh land and reseLLlemenL. ollcy should be elaboraLed on equlLable gender
based land rlghLs, backed wlLh flrm legal basls.

uurlng land reform processes, Lhe pollce as a law enforcemenL agenL musL be crlLlcally lnvolved
as Lhe envlronmenL creaLed ls conduclve for breakdown of law and order. 8y leavlng Lhe
slLuaLlon, wlLhouL law enforcement agents, the law of the jungle, referred to as survival of the
fittest takes over and thus has the effect of crowding out critical constituents such as women
and youLhs who normally do noL have Lhe machlnery for proLecLlng Lhelr rlghLs.
1F 8MR7)U4#:9#6#7(,
l am acknowledglng Lhe Mldlands SLaLe unlverslLy, ueparLmenL of Ceography and
LnvlronmenLal SLudles for provldlng a conduclve envlronmenL, Lechnlcal supporL and playlng a
supervlsory role for Lhls research. l am hoplng LhaL lessons learnL from Lhe Zlmbabwe case on
gender and land dlsLrlbuLlon wlll be co-opLed ln fuLure land reform programmes ln order Lo
ensure a gender balanced access Lo land.
VF E#*#'#7M#,
l) 8haLasara, S. (2001). Women, Land and overLy ln Zlmbabwe: ueconsLrucLlng Lhe lmpacLs of
Lhe lasL 1rack Land 8eform rogram: Soclology ueparLmenL, lnsLlLuLe of LnvlronmenLal SLudles,
unlverslLy of Zlmbabwe !ournal of SusLalnable uevelopmenL ln Afrlca (volume 13, no.1,) @AABC
DEFGHEEGI .#&7,$/ J/,3)70,+8 $4 K)//08#3&/,&; .#&7,$/; K)//08#3&/,&
ll) CenLre for Pouslng 8lghLs and LvlcLlons, (2001). Land, Pouslng and roperLy 8lghLs ln
Zlmbabwe (Ceneva: CCP8L,) www.cohre.org
lll) Chlngarande, S. (2004). Women and Access Lo Land ln Lhe ConLexL of Lhe lasL 1rack Land
8eform rogramme ollcy 8rlef repared for 1he Afrlcan lnsLlLuLe for Agrarlan SLudles (AlAS)
lv) lood AgrlculLure CrganlzaLlon, (2003). Llvellhoods and AgrlculLure, 8erlln
(v) Coebel, A. (2003). Zlmbabwe's 'lasL 1rack' Land 8eform: WhaL abouL women? ")/5)7; K#&-)
&/5 .1#+17); DF(2), 134-172, Zlmbabwe
vl) Puman 8lghLs WaLch, (2002). lasL 1rack Land 8eform ln Zlmbabwe, new ?ork
vll) Mpahlo, 8. (2003). Women and Lhe land reform programme ln Zlmbabwe. lnsLlLuLe of
uevelopmenL SLudles, Agrarlan 8eform and uevelopmenL ro[ecL. 6-13, Zlmbabwe
vlll) Shaw, W. (2003). They Stole Our Land: Debating the Expropriation of White farms in
Zimbabwe, L$17/&# $4 M$5)7/ >47,-&/ A+15,)0 42(1): 7389, Zlmbabwe
lx) Women and Land Lobby Croup (WLLC), (2001). 8eporL on Workshop on Cender Caps ln
Land 8eform ollcy uocumenLs, Parare
x) Zlkhall, . (2004). lasL 1rack Land 8eform and AgrlculLural roducLlvlLy ln Zlmbabwe,
LnvlronmenL for uevelopmenL 9,0-100,$/ K&<)7 A)7,)0