101
and capital investment. It is representative of other commercially strategic areas in the
passageway.
Field research conducted in 1992 before the peace accord and in 1993 after the treaty was
signed revealed many different types of land-tenure practices and land uses. In 1992, we were
also told about a number of land conflicts that had erupted. The area was highly populated
with local smallholders and displaced families, particularly the communal villages.
As in Sofala, the government created many communal villages and cooperative farms in
Manica Province. Many smallholders, perhaps as much as 12.5 percent of the rural
population in the province, were moved into these villages in the late 1970s. They farmed
land that was allocated to them by the communal village and lost rights to family land. Other
smallholders were given land in cooperative farms, usually attached to or part of a state farm
enterprise. Still other smallholders were employed on the state farms.
In Vanduzi, and in other parts of Manica, the communal villages were transformed as a
result of the war. With this transformation, people's views of the villages have changed. As
noted earlier, people were often forced to move into the villages and abandon their family
land. Other individuals were "encouraged" to move with the promise of better social services,
education, and other benefits. Initially the government was able to provide some of these
services in some places, but could not mitigate the fact that people had lost rights to family
land.
In the early to mid-1980s, RENAMO increased its attacks on government-created villages.
Many communal villages became unsafe places to live. As a result, smallholders abandoned
the towns for the bush. In 1982, Zimbabwean troops began to help government forces secure
the corridor from assaults, and by 1987 there were 10,000 Zimbabweans in the area (Sidaway
1992). Because of these changes, many smallholders and displaced families moved back to
the communal villages. Smallholders replied that they did so because these villages—or
"centers" as they were often called—had some infrastructure and services 215 and had
become considerably safer than the unprotected rural zones. However, land became
increasingly scarce as more people moved into216the centers, thereby decreasing output and
food supply per family and leading to conflict.
In the period from 1990 to 1992, many NGOs began operating in the district; they
brought food, seeds, and services, including medical assistance. This presence had a pull
effect on the local population, influencing some to stay in the communal villages. In 1992,
many farmers claimed that when the war was over, they wanted to leave the villages; in fact,
many expressed a great deal of animosity toward the government regarding the communal
villages (Myers, West, and Eliseu 1993). At the same time, however, smallholders and
displaced individuals made positive remarks about the services that were available at the
centers. In other areas, we frequently heard of families' dividing themselves between two
locations, one part remaining in or near the center while the second part moved to other
215. Interviews with smallholders, Vanduzi Administrative Post, August 1992; and agricultural extension
agents, Vanduzi Administrative Post, August 1992.
216. Ibid.