Introduction

This article explores how social relations contribute to the emergence of informal land leasing and subdivisions in Zimbabwe's A1 villagised settlements after the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) and examines the implications these informal practices have for individuals with limited access to land in the context of resettlement. The paper uses social relations as a basis for understanding the nature of informal land subdivisions, drawing insights from Zimbabwe’s small-scale farms in Zvimba District, Mashonaland West Province. The focus is on Model A1 (small scale), which primarily targeted beneficiaries from communal areas, with allocations of up to 15 hectares depending on the natural region (Masiiwa & Chapungu 2004: 12).

Informal land leases/subdivisions can take various forms, depending on the specific context and local customs. In some cases, land may be leased for agricultural purposes, allowing individuals or communities to cultivate crops or graze livestock (Mudimu et al, 2020). Informal rental land lease emerges as a result of a number of factors such as the growing population, and demand for land amongst other factors. These agreements are often based on informal understandings, verbal agreements, or customary practices rather than formal contracts or leases registered with the government or other regulatory authorities. Informal land leases typically occur in situations where formal land tenure systems may be lacking, inadequate, or inaccessible for various reasons. This could be due to factors such as limited access to formal legal processes, bureaucratic complexities, or cultural and traditional practices that prioritize informal arrangements (Rao, 2019). This is predominantly on social relations which entail relationships between individuals, societies, and places which is formal and informal relationships.

Land is a key asset in Africa, in the wake of increasing demand for land in rural Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly agricultural land has become scarce, and this has seen the emergence of informal land leasing. Increasing demand for agricultural land has led to informal land markets in Sub-Saharan Africa. In countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia the inability to meet the growing demand for land as well as in-migration has contributed to a demand for agricultural land particularly in rural areas (Teklu and Tadesse, 2001; Chimhowu & Woodhouse, 2006 and Chauveau & Colin, 2010). Jayne et al., (2014:1–2) argue that in Africa most of the population is in rural areas and there 'is intense competition for fertile land and water among four main groups: rural communities (mostly smallholder farmers) that continue to experience population growth’. These informal land leases are also present in cases of land reform.

Despite the FTLRP's A1 model’s objective to alleviate congestion in communal areas, informal land leases and subdivisions have increased in resettlement areas, as noted by scholars like Ncube (2018) and Scoones et al. (2011). While debates on informal land leasing have traditionally centred on issues like rural-to-urban land-use conversion and geographical processes at the city peripheries (Agheyisi, 2016), limited research has delved into the informal land subdivisions occurring in post-FTLRP resettlement areas. This study specifically focuses on the dynamics of informal land leasing within Zimbabwe's A1 villagised settlements, examining the influential role of social relations in accessing land through informal leases. The article argues that in cases where land is provided through land reform, policymakers should recognize the existence of these subdivisions, particularly for individuals with limited access to land.

While previous research, such as that by Sadomba (2008) and Matondi and Dekker (2011), has highlighted instances of land beneficiaries leasing to former white farmers, this study uncovers a novel market for land leases, primarily involving former farm workers and individuals from neighbouring communal areas. Despite some studies exploring the nature of resettlement area subdivisions (Mazwi, 2022; Mudimu et al., 2020; Chipenda, 2018; Scoones et al., 2011; Matondi & Dekker, 2011), a gap exists in understanding the pivotal role of social relations in facilitating land leases. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by investigating the influence of social relations in informal land subdivisions, particularly within A1 villagised settlements. Drawing on qualitative empirical data from Zvimba District, Zimbabwe, the research sheds light on the significance of social connections in entering informal land lease agreements.

The article is organized as follows: the next section presents the methodology, followed by the theoretical framework of social relations. Subsequent sections focus on land subdivisions/leasing in Africa and Zimbabwe. The subsequent section describes insights from the case study area, illustrating the nature of social relations and land subdivisions in Zvimba District. Following this, a discussion and conclusion section demonstrate that social relations play a crucial role in enabling access to land through informal channels in resettlement areas.

Methodology

The study uses a case of Zvimba District, Machiroli Farm guided by a qualitative research approach encompassing interviews, participatory observations, and secondary data analysis to provide insights into the nature of land subdivisions and the influence of social dynamics. Machiroli Farm was selected as the research site due to its accessibility and the opportunity it presented to establish relationships with the respondents, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The farm accommodates 28 beneficiaries, including 12 beneficiaries, 10 communal area residents, and 6 former farm workers who were purposively chosen for interviews. Respondent selection aimed to ensure a balance in terms of gender, age, and socioeconomic background. Additionally, four traditional authorities (Chief, Headman, and Village Heads) and seven government officials were included in the study. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure the inclusion of cases that provided the necessary information for the research.

Purposive sampling technique was used in the study as it allowed me to use cases that have the required information concerning the objectives the case study that is informal land leasing. (Lavrakas et al., 2019). As a case study, one farm was selected for the study. While many A1 villagised settlements border communal areas, Machiroli Farm was chosen because it was easily accessible for people in both communal areas and A1 settlements. The data collection process involved conducting interviews, gathering life histories, participatory observations, and reviewing reports and policies from the Government of Zimbabwe as secondary sources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with farm workers, people in communal areas, and A1 farmers to gather narratives that shed light on the value of exploring the nature of land subdivisions since the establishment of the farms between 2000 and 2019. I resided in the research area during the fieldwork, employing participant observation and participating in various activities, such as farming, cattle herding, attending church services, funerals, and social gatherings. This approach fostered trust, facilitated everyday interactions, and provided valuable observations. However, it is important to note that the findings from this case study of Machiroli Farm may not be generalized to the entirety of Zimbabwe.

Social relations a theoretical framework

At a theoretical level, the function of social relations is the inter-personal interactions within the structure of the social relations. Social relations are exhibited through social networks, which often provide support emotionally, materially, and through companionship and encouragement. Social relations are evident through institutions such as family, friends, and neighbours. These relations play an essential role in communal areas, as poor households have access to resources mainly through social relationships based on patronage and reciprocity. Since social capital is embedded in social relations (Reimer et al., 2008; Dekker (2004: 36) states that social capital “is increasingly used to explicitly describe social interactions or the vitality and significance of community ties as a determinant of observed behaviour”. This is particularly important in negotiating access and control of land through informal land subdivisions.

Lin (1986) argues that social relations are characterised by reciprocation of services and exchanges and defined by intense and reciprocal interactions. In the case of this study, social relations are important in accessing land through informal land leasing. Social relations, therefore, entail relationships between individuals in different societies and places. There are formal and informal relationships, these relations define groups and are exhibited through various institutions, such as clans, churches and clubs. Social relations will be used to understand how they facilitate land leases in Zvimba District. Janssens (2007) argues that social relations may be developed through reciprocity, trust, networks, and exchange, all of which generate trust, facilitate co-operation, and reduce transaction costs. Land leases are enforced through social relations, which enable access to land, as I will show in this paper.

Reimer et al., (2008:261) argue that social relations reflect a comprehensive way in which people organise their interactions to accomplish tasks, legitimise their actions, distribute resources, and structure their institutions. Rural areas are mainly based on a strong sense of collective.

identity often reliant on recognised characteristics, such as ethnicity, birth or location, but they may also emerge as a result of shared life experiences or intense socialisation (Morse & McNamara, 2013). Mudimu et al., (2020:5) argue "though on the surface [informal] land leasing appears to be a smooth process; it is embedded within the social and political fabric of communities. As such reciprocity is often a key feature of these relations and, in the case study, reciprocity is key (Sahlins, 1972). Thus, what makes social relations important is the ability to overlap into various relations.

In land lease transactions particularly in the case study where people who do not own land, various social relations are used to access and negotiate the use of land as this study shows. As this article will show social relations are developed through networks, trust, reciprocity and exchange that facilitate cooperation, generate trust and reduce transaction costs. In turn, the use and maintaining of social relations is vital but most importantly access to key resources such as land. This is the context informal land subdivisions are understood in this study. This is the framework that guides this study. The section that fellows expand on the nature of informal land subdivisions.

Informal land subdivisions in Africa

Demand for land in rural Africa has intensified because of the demand for food, pastures, and water (Deininger et al., 2011). Some of the factors have been explored by scholars such as Chamberlin et al. (2014) who show how factors the agro-ecology is fuelling demand for land. Headey and Jayne (2014) argue that in most countries in Africa, demand for farmland has increased, in countries such as Kenya, Malawi and Nigeria. This demand for land has also increased informal subdivisions and leasing on the continent. However, it is important to state that this is not an entirely new phenomenon in Africa. Similar to other parts of the world, leasing and subdivision of land is a common scenario in Africa. It is important to state that these vary in texture and form, ranging from small-scale to large-scale commercial (Cotula, 2002).

In Africa there are several factors that drive these informal subdivisions, that is expanding the livelihood portfolio, sharing with land families, accessing labour, and sharecropping amongst a few (Cotula, 2002, Deininger et al., 2011). These are also anchored on the rural informal economy. The rural informal economy is premised on economic activity that is not subject to government regulation or taxation to sustain the livelihoods of impoverished populations through natural resource and land-based economic activities such as farming, logging, and mining (Weng, 2015:1).

Holden et al. (2008) argue that in Sub Sahara Africa, East, and Southern Africa there are widespread informal land markets (leases, subdivisions), particularly in cases where land is scarce ‘the distribution of land on-land factors is skewed, thereby creating incentives for market transactions for land’. The subdivision of land is also anchored on the rural informal economy. The main drivers for these transactions vary from cultural, social, economic, and political. The informal rural economy is where most land subdivisions occur, Cheng (2015:2) explains, are based on "the natural resource base [land] on which local people rely for their living, i.e., agricultural production and the extraction of natural resources…informal sector activities are in fact rooted in customary land and resource governance norms traditionally practised by local communities". In Africa, in several countries, informal subdivisions happen in a landscape where most people enjoy customary rights of possession of land and can produce their own means of subsistence (Bernstein, 2010) . In a number of rural areas in Africa, farming is done through informal ways (e.g., without permits or tax declarations) (Vorley et al., 2012). In countries such as Ghana, lack of consultation in the land reform, allocation and titling process was seen as unjust this saw a formality being disregarded by rural farmers a form of resistance against formality imposed by the state (Blocher, 2006; Hammond, 2005; Kasanga & Kotey, 2001).

In Africa, not all people own land, some provide labour, particularly in farming areas. Rental arrangements appeared in Lower Côte d’Ivoire in the 1960s for pineapple production, and expanded later, in the 1980s and 1990s, in Southern Côte d’Ivoire (Colin et al., 2009a). Small plots of land are rented out for food crops, and to a much lesser extent, for pineapple production, with rental agreements usually covering a single cropping cycle – from a few months for maize, yam, and rice, to up to a year for cassava, and two and a half to three years for pineapple (Colin, 2013). These people are mostly farm workers or dwellers who provide labour to commercial farming enterprises (Hall, 2011). In cases where people have no right to use land Spierenburg (2020:2) argues that "farm dwellers depended – and depend—on informal arrangements with landowners for access to land; hence the notions of 'abilities to access' and 'bundles of power'". In countries such as South Africa, despite the existence of legislation against sub-divisions of agricultural land, these are happening (Frantz, 2010).

Informal land subdivisions in Zimbabwe

The practice of land leasing in FTLRP farms is evident, as highlighted by scholars like Sadomba (2008) and Matondi and Dekker (2011), who argue that land beneficiaries often lease out land to former white farmers. However, this study reveals a new dimension to the land leasing market, predominantly involving former farm workers and individuals from adjacent communal areas. Several studies have delved into the nature of subdivisions in resettlement areas (Mazwi, 2022; Mudimu et al., 2020; Chipenda, 2018; Scoones et al., 2011; Matondi & Dekker, 2011).

Mudimu et al. (2020), drawing from a case study in Marondera, examines the various forms land leasing takes on in the post-fast track land reform in Zimbabwe. The author argues that land leasing can manifest in various ways, including long-term leases, short-term leases, sharecropping arrangements, and informal lease agreements. There is a necessity to draw insights from a different case study and illustrate some of the factors enabling land leasing. Furthermore, there is a gap in the examination of social relations in facilitating land leases. Hence, this study aims to address this lacuna by demonstrating the importance of social relations in accessing or entering into informal land lease agreements.

Post fast track although the goal was to provide land the challenges of informal land subdivisions were present. This is argued by Matondi and Dekker (2011) who emphasise that during this period despite the regulation landholder was not supposed to rent out, lease, or subdivide the land. Matondi and Dekker (2011:19) further argue that evidence emerged that:

these rules were not strictly adhered to nor enforced, as is evident from at least two empirical observations. In practice, many parents in resettlement areas do allow their son(s) to use a portion of their land. This is de facto subdivision, as the son(s) and his wife (or wives) will cultivate the portion of land by themselves and have full responsibility for investment in inputs, and full ownership of the harvest they obtain.

In essence, despite the existence of legislation that hindered people from subdividing land, people in these old resettlement areas engaged in subdivisions. This was mainly because people-maintained ties with places of origin make it easy to share the land with fellow kinsmen (Kinsey, 2004. Marewo, 2020). Matondi and Dekker (2011) further argue that these subdivisions contributed to land pressure in the old resettlement areas, which resulted in about 33 percent of the beneficiaries of FTLRP coming from the old Resettlement schemes, compared to 51 percent from the communal areas in Shamva, Zimbabwe.

Post-FTLRP informal land subdivisions are still a present reality, in its way, FTLRP became the solution to the land issue that the government had been haltingly seeking since 1980. In Zimbabwe the FTLRP did not only focus on correcting historical biases of the colonial government by redistributing land: it also 'allowed the state and ruling party to try and control this land and its inhabitants to an even greater extent than they have in the past' (Rutherford, 2008: 93). Access to owning land provided the opportunity for agricultural production in the farms from which the owners can earn an income. The provision of land also presented challenges such as the subdivision and leasing of land in resettlement areas. These land lease transactions also have prompted the enactment of policies to guide how land is leased by land beneficiaries.

According to the Statutory Instrument 53 of 2014 [CAP. 20:01]Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations, 2014, it stated that;

Subject to this section, a permit holder shall not- (a) cede, assign, hypothecate or otherwise alienate or sublet in whole or in part, or donate or dispose of his or her allocated land or any of his or her rights, interests or obligations under his or her permit, or place any other person in possession of the allocated land; or (b) enter into a partnership for the working of the allocated land; without the consent of the Minister in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. (SI 53, 2014).

Despite the presence of these legal instruments which made subletting, leasing, and subdivision illegal without the consent of the minister, several beneficiaries were engaged in subletting. Scoones et al. (2011) stated that people in resettlement areas were giving people in communal areas pastures for their cattle in exchange for draught power or payment in the form of heifers. This is also argued by Marewo (2020) that people in resettlement share land with people in adjacent communal areas based on socioeconomic transactions.

In other instances, some FTLRP beneficiaries were leasing out land to former white farmers. An issue that was addressed by the then Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development in 2014 in the Herald Newspaper;

It is illegal for resettled farmers to lease land. Farmers intending to venture into contract farming or partnerships should approach the Ministry of Agriculture’s economics and marketing department and also liaise with the Agricultural Marketing Authority for assistance… this was against the spirit of the land reform, which was meant to empower the indigenous people who were the rightful owners of the land.Footnote 1(Herald, 2014)

These statements from the state depict a disconnect of government policy and what is happening on the ground in resettlement areas as state policies cannot outdo traditional policies. The position that the Zimbabwean government of making it illegal to subdivide or lease out land in resettlement ‘is largely driven by fears that land reform beneficiaries will lose the leased land to former white farmers and in the process trigger a counter agrarian process’ (Mudimu et al., 2020:4). These are the issue that the case study grapples with particularly demonstrating how these land subdivisions are occurring in Zvimba based on social relations.

Case study area

Zvimba District, located in Mashonaland West, is approximately 85 kms away from Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe. According to ZIMSTAT (2022), the district has a population of 348,002 people. The district is rich in mineral resources, including gold and platinum mines. It is divided into two parts, the north and south. Prior to the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), the northern part of Zvimba was dominated by white large-scale commercial farming, while the south was predominantly communal farming. Machiroli Farm, located in the area previously known as Darwendale, is part of Zvimba District. The district shares boundaries with Chegutu, Makonde, and Chinhoyi.

Land challenges in Zvimba communal areas are a common issue in Zimbabwe. These areas are characterized by poor soils, land degradation, and sometimes overpopulation. In Zvimba communal areas, it is common for young men and their families to live on their father's homestead. This means that parents and their married children share the homestead and the farms. In some cases, when young men get married, they are given farming land by their parents or residential plots by village heads. Inheritance of land in communal homes follows the tradition of passing it on to the eldest son in the family, which is a common practice in most communal homes. As families grow and more generations come into play, the demand for land increases. Consequently, most communal areas in Zvimba face the challenge of a shortage of arable land.

Machiroli Farm is situated in Ward 21, which is an A1 villagised resettlement area. The farm shares borders with Zvimba communal areas, as shown in Map 2, and is conveniently located near essential facilities like schools and clinics. It is approximately 9 kms away from the main road connecting Kutama and Harare. According to officials from the Ministry of Lands District, out of the 28 beneficiaries on Machiroli Farm, 25 are from Zvimba Communal Areas. These beneficiaries primarily come from Wards 6, 3, 28, and 1, which surround the farm. The farmers on Machiroli Farm have diverse backgrounds. Before the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), farms like Machiroli Farm were predominantly owned by a small number of white commercial farmers for many years after independence. However, after the implementation of the FTLRP, the ownership of Machiroli Farm underwent a significant transformation, with the majority of the beneficiaries being residents from the communal areas. Most of these beneficiaries originated from Ward 6, while the remaining three, including the farm's chairman, came from areas outside Zvimba.

To illustrate the land challenges in the study area, let's take a look at the life history of a respondent on Machiroli Farm. Mr. C.H., a beneficiary of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) on Machiroli Farm, was born in Ward 6 at Kutama Hospital in 1976. He is the third-born in a family of seven, consisting of four boys and three girls. Since land is primarily passed on to sons, when Mr. C.H. and his brothers got married, they were allocated pieces of land to build their own homesteads around their parents' home. During Mr. C.H.'s childhood, before the subdivision of the land plot, the plot was sufficient for cultivating crops such as maize, groundnuts, round nuts, and millet. The yield was moderate and would often sustain them until the next harvest. However, as his brothers got married and started their own families, the plot was subdivided, and each family was given a portion of the family farm. On average, the plot used by a family measured about 2.5 hectares. This subdivision of land had a significant impact on the available arable land in the communal areas of Zvimba.

Land leases and subdivisions: Voices from communal areas in Zvimba District

The majority of the beneficiaries stated that they came from adjacent communal areas. This is mainly because of the land challenges in communal areas generally characterised by poor soils, land degradation and in, some cases, overpopulation (Scoones & Wilson, 1989). In Zvimba communal areas, in most cases, young men together with their families live on their father’s homestead, thus, parents and their children that have married share the homestead and the farms. In some cases, young men that marry are given farming land by their parents or residential plots by village heads. The FTLRP provided people in communal areas an opportunity to access more land in resettlement which were regarded as more fertile compared to communal areas. One respondent related the following:

In communal areas, as you can see, my son, the land that we have is minimal; we were squashed. The challenge was that, when the programme started, we had few areas to give to our children because the land is continuously being subdivided to accommodate a person that would have married and now wants to start his own home (Interview with Mr G.U., Ward 6, December 2017).

The movement to the A1 settlements for some to gain access to land (or more) land which they did not have access to in the communal areas. This assertion was noted by one respondent;

The thing is that in the communal areas, as you can see my son the land that we have is very limited, we were squashed. Land reform gave us the land which we can now pass to our children and future generations. In Machiroli Farm we have abundant land.(Interview with respondent 6, 1 December 2017)

At a policy level, this implied that one of the objectives that the FTLRP sought to achieve was relieving land pressure in the communal areas. While the general desire of moving to A1 settlements was to acquire land for farming, for some households it was a chance to break free from their relatives. One of the respondents clarified breaking free from the control of in-laws or other families’ members: she stated that:

For me, the FTLRP was a blessing, I did not have the best relations with my husband's family. My husband's plough his father's plot, and we had to follow what they wanted us to plant. When this opportunity came to get farms, I saw it as a beginning of a new lease on my life. The good thing was that I could visit the family but not stay with them" (Interview with Mrs M. C,Footnote 2January 2018).

The opening up of land in the A1 settlements served as a way to solve some disputes amongst in-laws, jealous amongst families and cases of witchcraft. FTLRP provided households with an avenue to solve conflicts of family disputes over control of land:

One beneficiary Mrs X stated that;

When we were in the communal areas we lived with my in-laws, while I enjoyed the excellent relations that we had I always felt that I was under their control as the farm was theirs though we had a portion that we used in the farm. Interview with Mrs X, May 2018

For households in this category, there was a need to secure a plot that was under the direct control of the household.

One of the primary objectives of the FTLRP was to provide land to overcrowded communal areas. Part of the purposes of the A1 villagised model of the FTLRP Policy document of 2001 was "to relieve pressure in the over-populated areas while at the same time maintaining the social and fabric of the settlers by resettling as much as it is possible, households with common origins in the same village" (GoZ, 2001). This was the case in Machiroli as a number of beneficiaries came from the same district and with some kinship and totem similarities. In most cases, people on Machiroli farm are using their connections with places of origin to.

Whilst communal areas are adjacent to resettlement areas, people in communal areas are not always available to assist the A1 villagised settlements. There are social relations that are emerging amongst the A1 farmers and former farm workers on the farm through various social networks. This is evident through some religious institutions such as African white garment churches which have been based on mutual religious beliefs and shared identity and sense of belonging. Mrs M.D, confirmed by stating that:

I have strong relations with other farmers that are on this farm who have a white garment church here. These are those that I render as my family. In exchange for land, they provide me with labour and technical assistance (Interview with Mrs M D).

On A1 settlement as stated by Mrs M.D social networks are emerging on the resettled farm.. Machiroli farm is a unique case study as it brought a significant proportion of households from the same locality.

After the FTLRP, the relations between A1 and Machiroli Farm households have evolved. Former farm workers tended not to be seen as 'belonging' to an area where they may have worked for decades, and they tended to be excluded from A1 land allocations because these prioritised the 'indigenes', while they were often labelled as 'foreign'. This was explained below;

When land reform started, some farm workers supported the white farmer, and we viewed them as outsiders. When we moved into this farm most farm workers tried to sabotage us, and some refused to work for us. However, with time, that has changed, people have realised that this is not reversible. We have built relations with former farm workers and some of us even give portions of land for them to farm (Interview Mr TG, Machiroli Farm).

There are new emerging relations between households in the former farm workers and A1 settlers. As been highlighted earlier the relations between these two groups have evolved. Some relations have emerged between these two groups. Over the years these two groups have acknowledged they stand to benefit from each other in various ways. These ways could be as in reciprocating labour for monetary payment. In addition, Machiroli farm and Zvimba communal areas are connected as socio and cultural levels manifesting through the social and financial networks. One of the respondents in the former farm workers stated that “I am an active member of the group. In his farm and some women from the former farm workers have “mikandoFootnote 3”, these have helped women in a lot of areas” (Interview with Mrs J.W).

Land subdivisions on A1 villagised settlements

There are three types of subdivisions that I focus on in this section, the first being land divided informally to children of the beneficiaries of the FTLRP, and relatives in communal areas. Secondly, to relatives in communal areas and lastly through networks created in resettlement areas comprising of former farm workers. In the A1 villagised settlement it was stated that there are various ways through which land has been subdivided. As argued by Janssens (2007), social relations evident through institutions such as family, friends, and neighbours. After 20 years since the FTLRP social relations among people on the farms, as stated by some respondents facilitate subdivision of land to meet the expanding family demands in resettlement areas. This was explained by a respondent;

we moved to Machiroli farm in 2000. I moved to Machiroli Farm in the year 2000 when my sons were still very young. When we moved into this farm I did not think that such a time would come where I would want to subdivide my farms to my sons who have since married. I am aware that the Ministry of Lands does not want us to do that but, I as the father it is my duty to make sure my sons have a place to build a home.

This illustrates a new form of subdivision that is emerging in resettlement areas.

This was also emphasised by a respondent that stated that while people were discouraged from subdividing land it was impossible to do that;

My family over the years has grown I have been forced to give a small portion of my farm to one of my sons. As you know without a man without land is a person without security, I fear that we will be overcrowded here in resettlement areas.

This is in line with this view, Ncube (2018) argues that there are subdivisions among family members of A1 villagised settlements in Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe.

The beneficiaries of the FTLRP also subdivide their land with former farm workers through the social relations that have been established since 2000. Relations have evolved and developed. The FTLRP has transformed strangers into neighbours, and the programme has enabled former farm workers and A1 settlers to create networks.

Social relations may be developed through reciprocity, trust, networks, and exchange, all of which generate trust, facilitate cooperation, and reduce transaction costs. Relations established in the earlier days of farm occupations, two decades after land reform have facilitated other transactions based on these relations. In the case of S.K household, from the first days of the farm occupations he established relations with some former farm workers. This is also illustrated in how some beneficiaries are sharing land with former farm workers. Mrs SK stated that “Six hectares is big, so we share with former farm workers who in most cases share a portion of their produce with us”. These are mostly reciprocal transactions in exchange for agricultural products or cash dividends. Furthermore, based on the established relations with people on the farms Mr MU also stated that “I cannot afford to hire labour, so I use what I have which is land. I have given former farm workers a portion of my farm in exchange for their labour”.

Other respondents indicated that through land subdivisions they can access land. Mrs SV stated that:

I have realised that due to the economy it is hard to hire people, in most cases I give a small portion of my farm to the former farm workers who usually assist me with technical knowledge and labour on my farm.

This demonstrates that as a way of accessing labour several A1 villagised farmers on Machiroli Farm are leasing out land to former farm workers. The leadership on the farm is aware of the existence of the land transactions between the A1 households and former farm workers there is no benefit for there. This is also echoed by Mudimu et al (2020) who argues that traditional leaders are aware of the informal land leasing in resettlement areas, and they condone the practice.

Social relations also are key in the issue of grazing land for cattle is a challenge for many households in Ward 6, however, some respondents stated that through social relations they are accessing land on Machiroli Farm. Mr Z.A.K. described how the FTLRP had some benefits, especially for some cattle-rearing households in communal areas:

In the early days, when cattle strayed into commercial farms, the owners would be arrested by the white farmers. We do not have grazing lands; when our sons moved to the resettlement areas it was a blessing for us, in times where our cattle have no grazing, we send them to our sons. What I see is some are planning with others there for them to bring their cattle (Interview with Mr Z.A.K.).

These transactions to access land (grazing) are anchored on social relations. The connections as either friends or family between the communal and A1 resettlement areas households enabled the movement of cattle between these two areas.

The “New Dispensation in Zimbabwe”,Footnote 4 an Emmerson Mnangagwa-led government which took over Robert Mugabe on 21 November 2017 changed the policy on land rental, in the Mugabe led government rental or leasing out of land was not allowed though beneficiaries engaged in renting out land as in Machiroli. The late Minister of Lands, Agriculture, and Rural, Retired Air Chief Marshal Perrance Shiri in Zimbabwe, in his speech screened on Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation Television (ZBC-TV) announced that “

The Minister of Agriculture, Lands, and Rural Resettlement Retired Air Chief Marshal Perrance Shiri, however, said all farmers who benefited under the agrarian reforms programme are allowed to enter into partnerships with partners of their choice whether black or white as long they follow the state’s laid down procedures. (ZBC-TV, 2018Footnote 5)

This statement by the Minister was a reverse from the previous Mugabe government which had criminalised rentals of land which are happening in farms such as Machiroli farm. However, in principle this statement meant that this was subject to the land reform policies.

Regarding land subdivisions, people on Machiroli Farm lease out land to former farm workers. The deteriorating economic environment in Zimbabwe coupled with the liquidity crisis has damaged the family fabric in Zimbabwe. Many families are concentrating on the nuclear family with less attention to the extended family. A1 and communal households both acknowledged that the economy had affected the structure of the rural family as most families are slowly becoming nuclear-oriented. Most A1 beneficiaries are using land as a currency in resettlement areas, in most cases this is resulting in the subdivisions of their plots.

The opening of land in the A1 settlements played a significant role in resolving disputes among in-laws, reducing jealousy within families, and addressing cases of witchcraft. The implementation of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) provided households with a means to resolve conflicts over land control within families. Mrs. A, a beneficiary, shared her experience, stating:

When we lived in the communal areas, we resided with my in-laws. Although we had a good relationship, I always felt like I was under their control because the farm belonged to them, even though we had a portion of land to use on the farm. (Interview with Mrs. A Machiroli Farm, May 2018)

For households in similar situations, it was crucial to secure a plot of land that was directly controlled by their own household. The FTLRP offered these households the opportunity to acquire independent tenure, free from family control. One respondent mentioned that her family accused her of witchcraft, which prompted her to seek a fresh start. She shared the following:

Being called a witch is one of the most difficult and painful things. This was my life before moving here with my wife. I can tell you that my brother suspected me of witchcraft after finding my herbs, which were just normal herbs that people use. Ever since then, I was labelled as a witch. Coming here was a way for me to break free from that. That is why I only deal with farm workers here (Mrs TH, Machiroli Farm).

This illustrates that while social relations with places of origin are important in sub dividing land, these are not always the case. Some beneficiaries have focused mostly on their social relations with former farm workers where they engage in land transactions. This was further emphasised by this respondent:

You will notice that I only deal with people on this farm, mostly farm workers this is because where we come from people are jealous. When some sees that you have cows, chickens and goats they want to bewitch you, you know that mostly in our culture relatives bewitch you it is rare for a stranger to do so. That is why I lease out my farm to former farm workers who give me a portion of their monetary proceeds from the tobacco sales as agreed (Mrs GB, Machiroli Farm)

In the case of Zimbabwe's fast-track farms, informal land leases are occurring in most cases to increase the livelihood portfolio (Scoones 2010; Matondi & Dekker, 2011).

Discussion: Implications for informal land subdivisions and social relations

Empirical evidence in this article has illustrated the informal subdivisions that have emerged in resettlement areas. The ongoing subdivisions have the potential to congest the resettlement areas in the future, a concern also raised by Ncube (2018), who argues that the addition of people to A1 farms in Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe, will contribute to the overpopulation of farms. Although informal land transactions are inherently complex and the site of struggle between unequal partners (Sen, 2001), they constitute an essential element of the rural economy. These informal subdivisions are based on social relations between the landholders and the individuals provided with land.

This study demonstrates that in cases where there is no formalized structure for accessing land, labour, and natural resources, this is facilitated by social relations. As seen in other parts of Africa, such as Ethiopia, informal land markets are embedded in social relationships and provide an alternative way for intergenerational transference of wealth [land] (Roth, 2002). Despite the existence of formal legislation against such subdivisions, they persist. Insights demonstrate that in cases where people have regulatory measures to prevent the subdivision and leasing of land, these are facilitated by social relations. In understanding the nature of informal subdivisions, this will be achieved through examining the social relations that exist between resettled farmers on Machiroli Farm and people from their communal areas of origin.

Insights emerging from this study also demonstrate some of the pitfalls of the A1 villagised model that it will potentially follow the path of communal areas. Although the subdivisions are still minimal, if these land subdivisions continue A1 villagised settlements will follow a path almost like communal areas which will result in overcrowding. This negatively affects the growth and land management of the settlements, particularly given that the need was to decongest communal areas. Ikejiofor (2009) and Rakodi & Leduka (2004) reported that the purchase of customary land is the dominant means of land delivery for new residential development in Enugu-Nigeria and Maseru-Lesotho respectively. Colin and Woodhouse (2010) further state that land leasing is characteristic of 'informality' in many land markets in Africa is associated with questions about the precise nature and content of transactions.

Evidence from this case shows that informal institutions such as the subdivisions of land, on the other hand, are embedded in social norms and practices, including customary rules revealed through actors’ everyday practices and transactions on land. This implies a pluralist view of law, which sees non-state legal forms, whether or not recognised in state law, as relevant to understanding practices and relations relating to land and does not give one system of law greater standing than another. Informal land leases can take various forms, depending on the specific context and local customs. In some cases, land may be leased for agricultural purposes, allowing individuals or communities to cultivate crops or graze livestock (Mudimu et al, 2020). In other instances, land may be leased for residential or commercial use, enabling individuals to build homes or establish businesses.

While informal land leases provide flexibility and adaptability to local circumstances, they can also be associated with certain challenges and risks. The lack of formal documentation and legal protection may leave both landowners and lessees vulnerable to disputes, eviction, or changes in the lease terms. Additionally, informal land leases may not be recognized or enforceable under formal legal systems, making it difficult to address conflicts or secure long-term tenure rights (Gilbert, 2002). Statutory Instrument 53 of 2014 explicitly states that permit holders are prohibited from subletting, assigning, or otherwise alienating their allocated land without the written consent of the Minister, as demonstrated in this case study, land subdivisions continue to be a reality. The insights from this study also highlight the inconsistency between policy provisions and on-the-ground practices, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness and enforcement of existing policies. By considering social relations, which are a crucial element of agrarian communities, these insights contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the policy landscape in the context of informal land practices.

In most cases these subdivisions or lease agreements are outside of government regulations, they are influenced by the need to address critical rural livelihoods (Cheng, 2021). These make the land subdivisions or leasing ‘informal’. Mudimu et al (2020) argue that informal land leasing enables groups such as women and youth to access land and in many cases happens in areas where there are land shortages and unequal land redistribution. Teklu and Tadesse (2001) further state that transactions in informal land subdivisions and markets tend to enable households that would not have access to land.

The access to land as demonstrated in this case is embedded in social relations which connect people in the rural informal economy guaranteeing access to land to people including farm workers which cases of land reform are systematically secluded. This article demonstrated that although redistribution of land through land reform has contributed towards some factors, such as providing more land, diversifying livelihoods, and increasing agricultural growth. Land reform, as demonstrated in the case of Zimbabwe has presented a new challenge of the subdivisions of pieces of land distributed under fast track.

While there are there are several factors that drive these informal subdivisions, that is expanding the livelihood portfolio, sharing with land families, accessing labour, and sharecropping amongst a number as this case has shown these are facilitated by social relations to sustain the rural informal economy. The article concludes that social relations enable people to access land through informal channels in resettlement, areas. In the presence of land shortages, strong social relations enable people to bypass legal policy directives through land subdivisions. While acknowledging the increasing land scarcity in Africa, while political and economic points of view are important in understanding, it is important to understand these within the social frame.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article presents empirical evidence of the emergence of informal subdivisions in resettlement areas, which pose the risk of overcrowding rural regions. These subdivisions are driven by social relations between landholders and those who receive land. Despite formal legislation prohibiting such subdivisions, they persist, underscoring the significance of social relationships in facilitating informal land transactions. Findings from this study also highlight the drawbacks of the A1 villagised model, as continued land subdivisions can impede the growth and management of settlements and contribute to overcrowding. It is worth noting that the phenomenon of acquiring land through informal means is not unique to Zimbabwe but is observed in other African countries as well. The sale of customary land significantly contributes to the land supply in many African cities, and individuals acquiring land through informal channels often enjoy de-facto security of tenure.

The case study has demonstrated that access to land is intricately linked to social relations, connecting individuals in the rural informal economy and ensuring land access for various stakeholders, including farm workers. While land reform has succeeded in providing more land, diversifying livelihoods, and promoting agricultural growth, it has also presented challenges in terms of land subdivisions. These subdivisions are driven by factors such as expanding livelihood opportunities, kinship-based land sharing, accessing labour, and sharecropping, all facilitated by social relationships. This article concludes that social relations play a crucial role in enabling access to land through informal channels in resettlement areas. Strong social relationships empower individuals to navigate legal policy directives and overcome land shortages. Understanding the social dynamics within the context of land scarcity is vital for effective land reform and sustainable rural development in Africa.