“We can’t talk of the environment without taking about the local leadership” Why politics matter when thinking about land use change in Zimbabwe
Source: “We can’t talk of the environment without taking about the local leadership” Why politics matter when thinking about land use change in Zimbabwe | zimbabweland Participatory discussions on land use and environmental change were undertaken in our Masvingo sites in early May 2026. These were conducted in three A1 farms, namely Wondedzo Wares, Wondedzo […]
Participatory discussions on land use and environmental change were undertaken in our Masvingo sites in early May 2026. These were conducted in three A1 farms, namely Wondedzo Wares, Wondedzo Extension and Sanangwe in Masvingo district. The discussion of the satellite maps across the sites revealed important insights into environmental change and its sometimes political drivers.
Interpretation of land use and environmental change
The group explored five areas on the maps (2004, 2009, 2014 and 2025), which are marked on the 2009 map below.
Area 1: Participants noted a decline in forest along the Popoteke river and dam. By 2009, riverine forests had been cleared and gardens were established along the river. However, these gardens had disappeared by 2014, and sparse bush has since reestablished. Those gardens were deemed ‘illegal’ by government officials and were therefore banned. Two big community gardens were later established – one for ‘youth’ and the other for women.
Area 2: Participants observed a steady increase in crop lands from 2004 to 2009, and a decline in 2014, with some recovery by 2025. In the first few years of settlement, the new farmers undertook their farming on residential stands as they cleared and destumped extensive outfields. Parents were still straddling between the new resettlement areas and communal areas. “At this time, people were not sure whether they will stay or not. Rumours circulated that we will be evicted one day”, one female participant observed. In 2009, however, there was an increase in cropland as more and more people took up their plots. During this period, the new farmers were now committed to farming. According to participants, the GNU led to economic stability and inputs were relatively affordable. In addition, farmers received state subsidized inputs. However, in 2014, there was a decline in cropland and a reversion to forests. A combination of drought, lack of draft power and manure, reduction of government inputs, ageing of the original settlers and economic instability all affected crop farming. Farmers increasingly devote attention to their homestead stands under pfumvudza, as well as irrigated horticulture made possible through borehole drilling. With good rains in 2025, there was some return to outfield farming, but not as much as before.
Area 3: In 2004, people were still clearing their fields, and engaged in cropping on their residential stands as noted above. By 2009, the new farmers were now much more interested in farming during this period. This was the “climax of farming, where everyone was now fully committed to farming.” 2009 was also a good rainfall year when many farmers had a bumper harvest. Participants also noted dollarisation during the GNU period as a key driver in the increase of cropping. However, as elsewhere, participants noted a decline in croplands in 2014. This was associated with severe drought conditions, causing caused people to concentrate on their small irrigation schemes. The further decline in crop fields by 2025 was attributed to the outbreak of January disease (which saw a decline in herds) as well as drought in the previous year. Despite good rains in 2025, few cultivated their outfields due to lack of labour: “Children of farmers are also migrating away from the farm. Many are now Majoni-joni (migrants in South Africa).” Participants also pointed out that some farmers were abandoning farming in favour of gold mining in Wondedzo mountain. “Everyone these days wants to do gold mining, and expects to pick some gold.”
Area 4: Participants observed a general increase in crop land from 2004 to 2009 in the whole farm, followed by a decline in cropland from 2014 to 2025, with some areas reverting to sparse bush, grassland or forests. According to their accounts, in 2004 most self-contained farmers were absentee land holders, often working in town. Their plots were occupied by workers, who were not engaging in farming substantially. A participant noted, “These were cellphone farmers.” In 2009, participants observed an increase in cropland as many retired from their jobs and took up farming on a fulltime basis. As one male participant observed, “We decided to leave the offices!” However, the participants observed a decline in crop lands in 2014 attributed to the decline to livestock losses due to diseases and inflation after the GNU. Others noted how by then, “Some farmers were now concentrating on cattle production rather than crop farming. Some of these farmers used to cultivate between 10ha and 20ha around 2009, but they were now reducing their cultivated areas in 2014, some reducing to as little as 1ha.” Some have since abandoned the cultivation of their dryland crop fields and are now focusing on irrigated horticulture along Mutirikwi river. Because of all these reasons, participants postulated that the croplands will continue to decline because of lack of financial resources. As one male participant observed, “in five years’ time these farms will be all grasslands or forests because inputs are becoming expensive.”
Area 5: In 2003, the crop land in Sanangwe farm was not big. This is because the new settlers were still very few and were still busy opening up outfields. From 2003, more people were settled formally by government officials and illegally by sabhukus, leading to an increase in the population. As elsewhere, in 2009, we see an increase in cropland, followed by a decline in 2014. One male participant explained: “During this period new settlers were getting aid from the government. Government was assisting us with seeds, fertilisers and tractors. Second, cattle for draught power were plenty.” After this, people began concentrating on cultivating their stands and abandoned outfields, explaining the decline in crop land in 2014. Another female participant added, “Before we were getting everything from the government – seeds and fertilisers. Not a few cups of seeds and fertilisers we now get under pfumvudza these days!” Another noted, “during the 2014 period, this is the time when pfumvudza was widely promoted, and people concentrated their efforts on stands. With reduced herds, this made a lot of sense.”
Contested authority
Cutting across all these discussions of particular sites was a commentary on how contested authority was causing problems. People pointed to particular times when this was particularly acute, while others there was less competition between authorities.
The three farms have had a long history of chieftaincy contestations since settlement, with major implications for environmental change. Soon after settlement, a bitter dispute emerged between Chief Chikwanda and Chief Makore. In 2013, another chief – Chief Musara – was appointed the substantive chief of the area, leading to further disputes. One Sanangwe male participant explained these contestations:
“Initially in this area, we had no chiefs. But as time goes on, we had that we were now under Chief Chikwanda. Soon after that, there was a conflict between Chief Chikwanda and Makore. After that conflict, Chief Makore sort of withdrew, and the area remained under Chief Chikwanda. Again, after a while, we were then told that the area was now under Chief Musara. Why am I talking about this? These chiefs came and changed rules that were put in place by the Ministry of Lands created a lot of problems. It also gave birth to divisions in the area. Because of these divisions, it is very difficult for people to work together or come up with one goal.”
According to participants, these contestations have disrupted community cohesion. “These contestations have led to divisions, with particular groups of people associating themselves with a particular chief”, one participant observed. This has had major implications for the management of natural resources and rehabilitation programmes. Participants noted that each of the chiefs came with their own rules, leading to confusion.
Ongoing contestations over chiefly authority have had some major implications for environmental management, participants explained:
Areas that were once regarded as sacred are no longer so. In Sanangwe there is a perennial pool called ‘Gawa romupunga’ (meaning: pool of rice). According to participants, in the past, rice grew there naturally, but people could not harvest it. “When you pick the rice, it would disappear from your hand”, one participant observed.
The extreme fluctuation in rainfall across years was also attributed to disquiet amongst traditional spirits unhappy about confusions around traditional authority. As one participant put it, “We believe that rains have become unpredictable and low because traditional spirits of the area are not happy because of the chieftaincy contestations that are happening.”
Participants also expressed concern about the difficulties of mobilizing people to participate in community programmes, such as rehabilitating gullies or roads.
Through the discussions, participants particularly stressed that the environment was influenced by local leadership and politics, as one participant declared: “We can’t talk of the environment without taking about the local leadership (utungamiriri)”.
Dynamic drivers of change
The drivers of environmental change are at once ecological (drought, disease) as well as social (ageing, labour availability), technological (irrigation equipment, seed/fertilizer access) and political (contested authority, government programmes support). Changes emerge at particular times in ways that can only be explained by understanding how such drivers intersect at particular moments in particular places. A general story of environmental change (whether of decline or improvement) makes no sense without a deeper understanding of these dynamic interactions within and across particular landscape patches. The final blog in this short series will try and pull some of these wider themes together.
This is the fifth in a blog series on land use and environmental change and was written by Tapiwa Chatikobo, Keen Marozva, Felix Murimbarimba and Ian Scoones. The blog first appeared on Zimbabweland
