100
Like Sofala Province, this area in Manica Province has historically been an area of
considerable financial investment. It is a region of great agricultural and industrial potential:
The lands are fertile and located near transportation, markets, and rivers; there is an
abundance of labor. Although the government invested heavily in the security of the corridor
and Zimbabwean troops were stationed along the route during the war, both infrastructure and
population centers suffered from repeated RENAMO attacks. The area will require substantial
reinvestment to recover the productive capability of the zone. Also, like Sofala, the territory
outside the corridor, north and south, was largely controlled by RENAMO during the war.
Little investment historically took place in these latter areas and there is no important
infrastructure, though what did exist prior to the war was destroyed in large part by
RENAMO itself. 210 These areas, also of great economic potential, will require much more
investment and time if they are to achieve any of their productive potential. The fact that such
economic disparities exist between the two zones—those controlled by government and those
run by RENAMO—may prove destabilizing in the near future.'"
2. LAND TENURE IN MANICA DISTRICT BEFORE THE PEACE ACCORD
After independence most of the colonial farms in Manica Province were abandoned; most
white farmers and a few assimilados fled the country. We were told by provincial authorities
that only "a few of the white privados stayed, while several of the assimilados remained in
Manica.""' The government intervened, nationalizing several private holdings and
eventually creating eleven state farms, 13 percent of th2e13total number reported nationwide
(see map 3), covering approximately 73,000 hectares (this figure also represents about
13 percent of the total land held by the state farm sector nationwide). One of the farms,
Vanduzi (4,000 hectares), was located in Manica District. It closed in 1990 due to financial
and administrative difficulties.'" Land tenure relations in this locality are influenced by the
area's proximity to the corridor—and consequently population concentration, infrastructure,
210. See Alexander (1994).
211. Ibid.
212. Interviews with district government officials and rural extension agents, Vanduzi Administrative Post,
August 1993.
We do not have accurate data for Manica District; Alexander (1994), however, has been able to compile
rather detailed data for Sussundenga District, Manica Province. While probably not complete, the data are
revealing. Alexander notes that only two colonial privados remained, while at least sixteen assimilados have
reemerged in the last two years to reclaim or reregister their holdings.
213. Our records from Manica Province on state farm land differ from other sources. For example, we
believe that IFLOMA in Sussundenga District comprised approximately 36,000 hectares; however, Alexander's
(1994) data put the actual size at more than 50,000 hectares. Since the provincial government has already
registered this much land from the state farm in Sussundenga, we think her figures must be more accurate.
Therefore, the total area held by the state agricultural sector in Manica is likely higher than that reported by the
central government in Maputo.
In addition, we have no data on Manica Timber State Enterprise and Manica Livestock Enterprise, both in
Gondola District. It is probable that Manica Livestock alone covered several thousand hectares, for cattle grazing
requires a substantial area. However, we cannot substantiate this because the information is unavailable in
Maputo at UREA (Unidade de Reestrutaçào de Empresas Agrarias ), the organization responsible for monitoring
and organizing the state farm sector (interviews with Hermes Sueia, UREA, Ministry of Agriculture, Maputo,
February 1992 and August 1993).
214. See Myers, West, and Eliseu (1993).