The Journal of Peasant Studies

ISSN: 0306-6150 (Print) 1743-9361 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjps20

Impacts of land and agricultural

commercialisation on local livelihoods in Zambia:
evidence from three models

Chrispin R. Matenga & Munguzwe Hichaambwa

To cite this article: Chrispin R. Matenga & Munguzwe Hichaambwa (2017) Impacts of land and
agricultural commercialisation on local livelihoods in Zambia: evidence from three models, The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 44:3, 574-593, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2016.1276449

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276449

Published online: 16 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 561

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjps20

Download by: [University of Western Cape] Date: 28 November 2017, At: 23:35
 The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2017
Vol. 44, No. 3, 574–593, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276449

FORUM: LAND AND AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIALISATION

IN AFRICA
Impacts of land and agricultural commercialisation on local livelihoods
in Zambia: evidence from three models
Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

By examining three different models of commercial agriculture – a plantation, a

commercial farming area, and an out-grower scheme – we observe heterogeneous
impacts on different segments of rural communities. Each produces gender and
generational differentials in employment and other income-earning opportunities. Our
study supports the hypothesis that the plantation model typifies the ‘enclave’
economy that is poorly integrated into the surrounding communities and the local
economy. While out-grower schemes have often been favourably compared to
plantations, our evidence on the Magobbo sugarcane out-grower scheme points to the
contrary: its block farming model consolidates smallholdings and creates a peasant-
shareholder class. Shareholder ‘out-growers’ receive dividends from what is
essentially an extension of the plantation. This accumulation for a few also produces
land scarcity and fragile semi-proletarianised livelihoods for others. By contrast we
find that the commercial farming model, while based on an elite form of large-scale
commercial farming, does provide benefits to surrounding areas, through employment
and local economic linkages.
Keywords: land; agricultural commercialisation; livelihoods; labour; economic linkages

Introduction
The past decade has seen increased foreign commercial interest in farmland in develop-
ing countries in general, and Africa in particular. The food price crisis of 2007–2008 is
among factors underpinning the recent wave of large-scale farmland acquisitions in
Africa, with Zambia being the site of significant land investment (Anseeuw et al.
2012). Large-scale land acquisitions raise concerns about loss of land and livelihoods
by rural communities (Hall, Scoones, and Tsikata 2015; White et al. 2012) but also
suggest opportunities for expanding employment and economic growth (Deininger
et al. 2011).
Foreign interests in African farmland have moved in tandem with debates about the
relative dismal performance of African agriculture and what path(s) it should follow.

This JPS Forum presents the findings of a study conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia, coordinated
by the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) www.plaas.org.za at the University
of the Western Cape, South Africa and under the auspices of the Future Agricultures Consortium
(FAC) www.future-agricultures.org. The research was funded by the ESRC-DFID Joint Poverty Alle-
viation Programme, Grant ES/J01754X/1 and provided inspiration and insights to inform the FAC’s
next phase of work: Agricultural Policy Research in Africa (APRA) programme.

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

 The Journal of Peasant Studies 575

These debates promote one form of agricultural commercialisation over another and
often revolve around the relative merits of large versus small farms and their impli-
cations for land rights for smallholders, labour absorption, rural livelihoods and econ-
omic spillovers in Africa (Baglioni and Gibbon 2013; Collier and Decorn 2009). Vast
literature around agriculture commercialisation concerns itself with the existence of
scale economies with much focus on a general inverse relationship between farm size
and productivity (Collier and Decorn 2009; Deininger 2011; Deininger 2011). Unfortu-
nately, these polarised debates ignore other possible paths to agricultural commerciali-
sation (for a more broad discussion on these debates, see Hall et al. 2017, this volume).
Evidence of land dispossession caused by the expansion of large-scale farming has
prompted policy attention towards inclusive agricultural growth (De Schutter 2009),
and the relative impacts of different pathways of agricultural commercialisation
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

(Smalley 2013). In particular, in recent years, contract farming and out-grower

schemes have received renewed attention, prompted by concerns about the negative
impacts of large-scale land acquisitions. Out-grower schemes are often presented as a
route through which farmers can engage with agribusiness and commercial agriculture
(Glover 1984; Baumann 2000). Yet as this study shows, not all ‘out-grower’ schemes
are similar, and the shareholder arrangements seen in our case study do not show
such benefits. But not all land acquisitions are large-scale and based on the expansion
of estate farming. Much contemporary land consolidation is occurring through invest-
ment in medium-scale farms through local-level accumulation or investment by urban
elites (Jayne et al. 2014). In Zambia, this class of land acquisitions – of between five
and 100 hectares – represents more land than either the entire small-scale farm sector
or the large-scale domestic and foreign investors in the country (Sitko and Jayne
2014). Although focusing on a long-established, state-planned area of medium- to
large-scale farms at Mkushi, our study has investigated the role of a commercial
farming area, and its effects on a local economy.
This study focuses on three agricultural models by comparing three case studies located
in three different districts and provinces in Zambia (Figure 1): Zambeef (large-scale planta-
tion model) at Chiawa in Kafue district in Lusaka province; Mkushi farm block (a medium- to
large-scale commercial farming area model) in Mkushi district, Central province; and
Zambia Sugar’s Magobbo smallholder scheme (out-grower model) in Mazabuka district in
Southern province. Under each of these models, a variety of institutional arrangements estab-
lish partnerships between local landholders (contributing the land and often the labour) and
largely external investors1 (contributing the capital, market linkages and technical expertise),
under different types of land, production and associated contracting arrangements.
Our study addresses the question: What difference do the models make to the outcomes of
commercialisation and agrarian change in relation to land, labour, livelihoods and lin-
kages? How do outcomes differ for different groups of people by gender and age? The
study is part of a broader cross-country study carried out in Ghana and Kenya at the same
time, and a general overview of the study is given by Hall et al. (2017, this volume).

1
The out-grower model involves foreign investment through the private company Zambia Sugar,
owned by the Illovo Group; Zambeef (plantation model) is a private company made up of foreign
and local investors; and Mkushi Farm Block (commercial farming area model) is made up of farms
owned and operated by largely foreign and also local private companies and individuals or families.
The other type of out-grower schemes in Zambia involve a commercial private company (e.g. cotton
ginner) providing inputs on loan and extension services and buying the produce from a myriad of small-
holder farmers scattered across the country, and thus does not fit the context of the study.
 576 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Figure 1. Location of three case study farming models.

Agricultural commercialisation in Zambia

These questions must be understood in historical context. Zambia has a long history of
attempts to encourage large-scale commercial agriculture on the assumption by state auth-
orities that the country is endowed with lots of available land that is agro-ecologically suit-
able for this purpose (Oakland Institute 2011; Sipangule and Lay 2015). The country’s
agricultural commercialisation efforts started in the early twentieth century with the estab-
lishment of blocks of farmland along the railway line from Livingstone in the south to the
Copperbelt in the north, and in some eastern parts of the country for white settler commer-
cial farmers, processes which were driven by the British South African Company (BSAC)
and British colonial office (Amberntsson 2011; Kakulwa 2012; Klepper 1979). During that
period, agriculture was developed to supply food to the mines in neighbouring Katanga, in
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and later on the Copperbelt of Zambia. Planta-
tion agriculture did not develop in colonial Zambia, although early white settlers made
attempts to grow rubber trees in the northern parts of the country but without much
success (Kakulwa 2012).
In Zambia land is administered through two tenure systems, involving ‘customary
tenure’ and ‘statutory tenure’ (Himonga and Munachonga 1991). This structure of land-
holding has its origins in the colonial state that created a discriminatory and highly
unequal landholding system between Africans and white settler farmers through the
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 577

1928 Crown Land and Reserve Order (Anthony and Uchendu 1970; Sichone 2008). At
independence in 1964, the native reserves and crown land comprised 94 percent and six
percent of the territory, respectively. Land laws enacted in the years following indepen-
dence changed the native reserves into ‘customary land’ and the crown land into ‘state
land’. Historically, commercial agriculture has taken place on state land, while traditional
smallholder farming was done on customary land (Chapoto et al. 2012).
Most agricultural commercialisation programmes, such as the post-independence farm
blocks and settlement schemes, were established on state land, which was compulsorily
acquired by the state from white settler farmers (Chenoweth, Knowles, and Ngenda
1995). In 1985, the government adopted a policy that allowed for conversion of up to
250 hectares of land held under customary tenure to leasehold tenure for foreign and dom-
estic agricultural investment (GRZ 1985; Hansungule 1998; GRZ 2006). In 1995, Zambia
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

passed the Land Act that liberalised land markets and made land held under customary
tenure in the country eligible for registration into leasehold title governed by statute, so
as to attract investment (GRZ 1995).
The colonial administration’s policy of concentrating efforts on commercial farming in
the Crown lands occupied by white settlers, and the neglect of native reserves occupied by
native Zambians, resulted in the creation of a dual agricultural economy with two distinct
production systems: large-scale commercial farms, which were often foreign-dominated, on
one hand, and the small-scale subsistence farms on the other (Klepper 1979). With indepen-
dence, the new Zambian government pursued agricultural policies that encouraged the
development of a new class of farms – the medium-scale or emergent farms – considered
to be economically viable to produce a surplus for the market through inputs and market and
land access support (Klepper 1979; Berry 1993). Small-scale farming mainly producing the
staple food crop – maize – is dominated by native Zambians and remains by far the largest,
in terms of numbers, of the three production systems. These farmers generally engage in
dryland farming of staple food crops (principally maize) on permanent fields or shifting cul-
tivation; others combine cultivation with pastoralism largely on customary land on an
average 1.5 hectares per household (Sipangule and Lay 2015; ECIAfrica Consulting
2012). Medium-scale farmers also produce maize and some cash crops, while the large-
scale farmers produce various crops for both local and export markets.
Since attaining independence in 1964, Zambia has implemented various schemes in its
effort to commercialise farming and increase productivity against the backdrop of the
departure of many white settler farmers in the immediate post-independence years
(Adams 2003; Chenoweth, Knowles, and Ngenda 1995). These attempts at commercialisa-
tion were largely carried out by the state institutions informed by socialist thinking (Gould
1998). The immediate post-independence government did not encourage large-scale
farming among Zambian citizens; instead, this type of farming was the preserve of state
institutions (Adams 2003) and remaining white settler farmers. The state encouraged the
expansion of smallholder commercial farming by establishing settlement schemes targeted
at smallholders on state land under statutory tenure. Furthermore, in efforts to commercia-
lise smallholder agriculture, state-managed out-grower schemes2 were established in the
1960s and 1970s by parastatal companies such as the Lint Company of Zambia
(LINTCO) for cotton, the National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD) for

2
These principally provided inputs on loan and extension advice, and purchased produce from small-
holder farmers scattered across the country.
 578 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

maize and the Tobacco Board of Zambia (TBZ) for tobacco, each providing extension ser-
vices, credit and market outlets for these respective crops.
During the early post-independence period, as during the colonial period, large-scale
plantation agriculture was slow to develop, save for the Zambia Sugar Nakambala
Estates established in 1964 as a joint venture between the Zambian government and a
private British company, Tate and Lyle. In the early 1980s, Zambia Sugar and the govern-
ment of Zambia initiated a nucleus-estate out-grower scheme involving smallholders and a
newly established private company, the Kaleya Smallholder Company Limited
(KASCOL), to supply cane to Zambia Sugar (Kalyalya 1988).
From the mid-1980s, growth in the country’s agricultural sector was negatively affected
by low investment, low productivity and production by smallholder farmers. The post-lib-
eralisation period in Zambia since the early 1990s has, however, spawned a new agricul-
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

tural economy that is export-oriented and relies on new investor large-scale farmers and
corporate agribusiness firms, as well as an indigenous ‘emergent’ elite class of farmers
(Jayne et al.2014). Liberalisation policies have also stimulated the growth of contract
farming between private agricultural firms and smallholder out-growers producing tra-
ditional and non-traditional export commodities including cotton, tobacco, cut flowers,
fresh vegetables and sugarcane (Keyser and van Gent 2007). By 2004, over one third of
the then-800,000 small-scale farmers in the country were involved in out-grower arrange-
ments of some kind (Droppelmann 2004, 5; Agrifood Consulting Limited 2005, 151), with
nearly all cotton, tobacco and paprika being produced under these arrangements (Tschirley,
Minde, and Boughton 2009, 2).
Although Zambia’s agricultural policy envisages the development of both large-scale
and small-scale agriculture, in the last decade it has been the explicit objective of the
Zambian government to negotiate new commercial agro-deals, mostly with foreign agribu-
sinesses (GRZ 2006; GRZ 2005). Commercialisation of large-scale agriculture is now the
central focus as a result of government’s desire to restructure and diversify the economy in
order to reduce dependence on a single commodity – copper – which has often destabilised
the national economy during global economic downturns (Sugiyama 2007; World Bank
2007).
The rapid agricultural commercialisation underway has been driven by a narrative that
frames Zambia as having abundant, idle and available agro-ecologically suitable land and a
stable political climate for foreign investment (Chu 2013; Oakland Institute 2011). The gov-
ernment has made several efforts to attract foreign investment in the agricultural sector, pro-
viding tax exemptions, duty-free inputs and express land allocation via the country’s land
bank and farm blocks (GRZ 2006; German, Schoneveld, and Mwangi 2011). Despite the
magnitude of large-scale farmland investments envisaged in the country, including the
farm block programme targeting one million hectares across the country’s 10 provinces,
the potential implications of such investments for local agrarian economies and smallholder
livelihoods are not well understood. By examining three contrasting models of agricultural
commercialisation in Zambia, the paper explores the opportunities and challenges of each,
in the context of the policy push to increasing commercialisation of agriculture.

Contrasting models of commercialisation

Our plantation case study is Zambeef Chiawa Estate, a 10,000-hectare farm located in the
Lower Zambezi valley, cultivating irrigated soybeans, wheat and maize in both summer and
winter. It was established in 1989 by an Irish agribusiness firm, Masstock International, to
grow marigolds, paprika and cotton, but when Masstock went into receivership in the early
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 579

2000s the estate was bought by Zambian-registered Lendor Agricultural Holdings, which
unsuccessfully attempted to grow winter maize. In 2008, Zambeef PLC bought and
revived the estate. Zambeef estate is surrounded by several villages, with smallholders
involved in dryland farming – despite the unfavourably hot climate – and traditional
small-scale irrigation on fields known as ‘matoro’3 along the Zambezi River bank.
Our contract farming case is Zambia Sugar’s Magobbo sugarcane out-grower block
farming scheme, which involves a 17,310-hectare nucleus estate at Nakambala owned by
Zambia Sugar, and a 432-hectare smaller block of ‘out-grower’ farmers at Magobbo.
Our choice of block farming for the out-grower model in this study is based on the fact
that this model is being considered by the Zambian government for scaling up the
nucleus estate-smallholder out-grower model in its ‘farm block’ programme to be
implemented country-wide (GRZ 2005). This farming model is an important variant in
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

the sugar sector, and one promoted by both South African sugar companies, notably
Illovo in southern and east Africa (Matenga 2016). The Magobbo ‘out-grower’ farmers
have organised themselves into a trust and pooled their land into a single block to
produce sugarcane that is supplied to the Zambia Sugar mill. While Zambia Sugar
already had one other out-grower scheme in Mazabuka district, the Magobbo project
was established in 2007 during the expansion of Zambia Sugar in response to the EU’s
Accompanying Measures for Sugar Producing (AMSP) countries. It differs from the
other schemes in that it was modelled on ‘block’ farming that required the consolidation
of individual smallholder plots into a larger contiguous block farm to create economies
of scale and also to facilitate irrigation infrastructure. In this farming model the nucleus
estate takes control of land management and marketing of the crop, while land owners
become shareholders, with shares proportionate to their original landholdings, ranging
from four to six hectares. The ‘out-growers’, including local smallholder farmers, retired
civil servants and urban elites, play no role at all in either production or farm management,
as their land is leased to the management service provider, Nanga Farms,4 and the share-
holding ‘out-growers’ collect their income once per month.
Our commercial farming case is comprised of multiple and contiguous privately owned
large-scale commercial farms: the Mkushi farm block in central Zambia. Colonial auth-
orities designed the farm block in 1950 as a commercial farming area for white settler
farmers, and since independence it has attracted commercial farmers of different national-
ities, particularly from South Africa and Zimbabwe. In recent years, there is also a growing
tendency towards acquisition and consolidation of farms by corporate farming entities such
as the UK-based Chayton Africa and South Africa’s AFGRI (Chu 2013).
Table 1 summarises some of the key features of the three models.

Data and methods

The study employed a mixed-methods strategy involving qualitative and quantitative
approaches applied sequentially between 2013 and 2015. We used a three-stage method
commencing with qualitative approaches of documentary review, 24 in-depth key infor-
mant interviews, and 14 focus group discussions involving adult men- and women-only
groups, mixed groups, and mixed groups involving young women and men. These were

3
‘Matoro’ in the local Chiawa area are small cultivation fields located near the Zambezi River bank
and benefits from the natural fertility from the annual alluvial flow and moisture from the river.
4
Nanga Farms is a subsidiary of Zambia Sugar.
 580
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

Table 1. Three contrasting models of commercialisation.
Level of In-situ
Case/model Historical context Unit of ownership Size (ha) Crop(s) technology processing
Plantation: Estate established in 1989 by Corporate 10,000 ha (only 2160 ha under Wheat, Capital- No on-site
Zambeef Masstock Africa; acquired agribusiness production) soybean, intensive processing
Chiawa Estate by Lendor Agricultural Average surrounding smallholder maize precision
Holdings early 2000s; farms – 2 ha farming
acquired by Zambeef in
2008
Commercial Established by colonial Individual large- 176,000-ha farm block; individual Principally Capital- On-site
farming area: authority in 1950 for scale farmers farms in the block are in wheat, intensive crushing of
Mkushi farm white settler farmers; Corporate thousands of ha each soybean, but labour soybean for
block production intensified agribusinesses Average surrounding smallholder maize absorbing cooking oil
post-2000 farms – 5.6 ha
Out-grower: Nucleus estate established in Individual Zambia Sugar nucleus estate Sugarcane Labour Milling/
Magobbo 1966; production smallholders 17,310 ha with 99-year intensive processing
Sugarcane Out- expansion programme involved in block leasehold title; Magobbo ‘out- plant for
grower Scheme from 2007 to 2009; ‘out- farming grower’ farm block 432 ha with sugar
grower’ scheme initiated block leasehold title; ‘out-
2007 growers’ hold between 4 and
6 ha each in the block
Average surrounding smallholder
farms – 3.5 ha
Source: Authors’ compilation.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 581

followed by a quantitative household survey based on a stratified sample and administered

among 324 randomly selected farm household heads or other adults in communities living
up to 5 kilometres away from each commercial model (98 in the plantation case, 110 in the
out-grower case and 116 in the commercial farm case). Analysis of this data was disaggre-
gated into households involved and not involved in the commercial model. Households
involved in the model were those that either had members employed by the model or
were part of the out-grower scheme, or both. The final stage was also based on qualitative
approaches including 18 in-depth family life histories and mapping input and output
markets. Key informant interviews included some workers employed in the models to
gain detailed insights into employment and labour issues and with farm managers, out-
growers and surrounding communities. For details on the methodology used see Hall
et al. (2017, this volume).
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Land access, ownership and utilisation

In order to assess the differential commercialisation outcomes of the three models in
relation to land we use the proportion of households in surrounding communities that
have access to land, and cultivate the land, and the average size of land owned. We
compare these parameters between the households involved in the models through
members employed or contracting or both and those not associated with the model as
well as across the models, as shown in Table 2. Due to large-scale land commercialisation,
it is expected that the level of land access, utilisation and ownership in communities sur-
rounding the models will reduce as a result of displacements as well as movement out of
farming into employment in these models.
According to the nation-wide representative smallholder Rural Agricultural Livelihood
Survey (RALS)5 (CSO/MAL/IAPRI 2015), 98 percent of the rural households in Zambia
have access to land. Almost the same proportion cultivate their land, and have an
average land size of 3.5 hectares. According to the RALS these parameters at district
level, where the three models are located, were as follows: in the plantation model in
Kafue 91 percent of households accessed land, 84 percent cultivated it and the average
land size was 3.1 hectares; in the out-grower model in Mazabuka 100 percent of households
both accessed and cultivated their land and the average land size was 3.2 hectares; and in the
commercial model in Mkushi 100 percent of households accessed land and cultivated it and
the average household land size was 7 hectares.
Our survey results demonstrate the difference between land access in our study areas
and the wider patterns within their respective districts. Table 2 shows these parameters
in communities surrounding the three models by households involved (through employ-
ment, contracting or both) and those not involved in the models. Three main findings
can be discerned.
First, the average size of land owned among households in the communities surround-
ing the plantation model is less than the district average. This can be attributed to the settle-
ment pattern which confines many villages to a narrow zone contiguous to the Zambezi and
Kafue rivers, respectively, where they cultivate the traditional matoro river gardens, thus
leaving substantial areas away from the rivers un-inhabited, with dryland farming con-
strained by a dry valley environment and crop damaging wild animals as the area is a

5
Conducted by the Central Statistical Office in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture and
Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute.
 582 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

Table 2. Land access and land cultivation across the models.

Land variable
% with access % cultivating Average land
Model Category to land land size (ha) Count
Plantation Employed in 89.3 89.3 2.5 28
plantation
Not involved 94.3 94.3 1.5 70
Out-grower Employed in scheme 36.8 36.8 0.5 19
Contracted 100.0 100.0 4.7 15
Both employed and 100.0 100.0 5.9 12
contracted
Not involved 66.1 66.1 2.8 59
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Commercial Employed on 82.3 71.0 5.3 62

commercial block
Not involved 83.3 79.6 5.9 54
Source: LACA Zambia Quantitative Survey and authors’ computations.

game management area. In this area, farmers have a mix of dryland farms and small plots
along the river, but all combine this with off-farm work, with many households having
members who are remitting income from tourist safari lodges, trading, farms and urban
areas. Households with members employed on the plantation have relatively more land
than those that are not. Land was reportedly acquired mostly by inheritance and traditional
authority for both households involved and not involved. An interesting finding is that no
purchasing of land was reported as a mode of acquiring land by the sampled households at
all, with relatively high proportions of households reporting acquiring land through borrow-
ing (especially among the households not involved in the model), and just occupying
without authority for those households with members employed in the model who are
mostly migrants. Most employees on the plantation are migrants from the neighbouring
Southern Province. From key informant interviews and life histories, many such employees
did not seek land within the surrounding community but invested in land from their home
areas. A relatively higher proportion of households employed in the model are of the
opinion that land availability and area under crop cultivation have increased in the past
five years.
Second, the average sizes of land owned by communities surrounding the commercial
model are also smaller than the district average. It cannot be said for sure that the smaller
size of land is as a result of the development of the commercial farm block, as the Mkushi
farm block itself has not expanded beyond its original boundaries. Our findings do confirm,
though, that households that have members employed on the commercial farms own rela-
tively less land than their counterparts who are not involved at all. The reported main way of
acquiring land by the households with links to the commercial farms relative to those not
was purchasing. Leasing and borrowing land were more pronounced among the households
not involved in the commercial farms, while inheritance and getting land from traditional
authorities were equally important for the two categories of households. Both categories
of households were of the opinion that land availability has reduced and land prices have
increased in the past five years. But relatively more of the households not involved in
the commercial farms felt that area under crop cultivation and yields have increased
during the same period.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 583

Third, the average size of land owned by communities in the Magobbo out-grower
scheme is relatively larger than the district averages. This is attributed to the scheme
having been a government settlement scheme6 before part of it was developed into an
out-grower scheme growing sugar cane under block farming. The households involved
in contract farming have much more land than those not involved in the scheme at all,
while those with members employed in the scheme have the least land. Most employees
in the scheme and the Zambia Sugar estate are young adults, most of whom can no
longer access family land for their own cultivation as most of it has been tied into the sugar-
cane scheme, and who therefore seek employment as their main livelihood option. Pre-
viously, farmers in Magobbo held between four and 32 hectares of land each, but with
the establishment of the scheme those participating were permitted a maximum of six hec-
tares each and those who possessed more could sell and/or exchange with other farmers
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

outside willing to join the scheme. Thus, some ‘out-grower’ households in the Magobbo
scheme still engaged in dryland crop farming and livestock rearing on land held off the
scheme, while others who sold the balance of their land had to depend on out-grower
incomes for the major part of their livelihoods. Land purchase among out-grower contract-
ing households is the most important mode of acquiring land, followed by inheritance. The
most important modes among households employed in the scheme are borrowing and
leasing, while those of the households not involved in the scheme at all are inheritance
and borrowing. All categories of households in the out-grower area recognised that land
availability and areas under crop cultivation had decreased and land prices increased in
the past five years.
In all the case study areas, there is a general perception that land availability had
decreased in the past five years, combined with growing land conflicts. Around the
Zambeef estate and near Mkushi commercial farming area there was increasing
demand from agricultural investors and safari lodges, and growing land speculation,
respectively, while in the out-grower area land was continuing to be removed from small-
holder production through Zambia Sugar’s expansion through out-grower schemes.
While there has been no recent mass dispossession of land evident around any of the
three model areas, as commercial farming has been long established, expansion and inten-
sification of commercial production have been intensifying land pressure. For example,
the development of a major water abstraction point on Zambezi River following the
expansion of Zambeef plantation displaced several families from one village. The
decisions to give up land to Zambeef were arrived at by mainly individual male household
heads to whom compensation was paid. According to key informants, many heads of
households misused the compensation money, leaving their families with no agricultural
land for farming, while a few relocated to nearby Chirundu border town where they have
bought houses. Around the out-grower model area, the relocation of many of the farmers
to give way to a single contiguous block farm resulted in their resettlement on land pre-
viously used as livestock pastures, thus impacting negatively on pastoral livelihoods.
These farmers were given loans to rebuild their houses in the new areas as most of
them were to be beneficiaries of the scheme.
The differential sizes of land owned by households around the three models are a result
of both the impacts of the farming models and also contextual and historical influences
associated with climate, demographics and government intervention. For the commercial

6
Government settlements were commercial farms which were divided into five- to 10-hectare farm
plots for settling by local small-scale farmers.
 584 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

farming area and ‘out-grower’ models, land access and distribution in the surrounding area
are also consequences of these models. Around the commercial model, low population den-
sities and the fact that the area of the model itself has not expanded outside its original
boundaries has allowed for large land sizes among households around this area to
remain. In the out-grower model, many farmers experienced net decreases in their landhold-
ings as a consequence of their participation in the scheme since they had to cede any land
above six hectares as required by the scheme.

Employment and labour

Employment is widely considered the main benefit that rural communities can derive
from large-scale commercial agriculture (FAO 2013; Sparks 2012; Aabo and Kring
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

2012; Cotula 2009). We investigated the impact of the three models on employment gen-
eration, quality, and gender and generational dimensions of employment in and around
the model areas. Our survey found that all the three agricultural models considered in
this study have generated both permanent employment and casual or temporary jobs.
As shown in Table 3, the proportion of household members from the surrounding
areas employed both casually and permanently is highest within the commercial
farming area (22 percent) and lower on the plantation and on out-grower block farms
(7 and 8 percent, respectively). This is split between permanent and casual employment,
with casual employment dominating jobs in the commercial farms. In all sites, a high pro-
portion of household members were employed somewhere, but not all of this work was
generated within the ‘models’; indeed, there was more work outside the out-grower block
farm and the plantation model.
While there are relatively more permanent than casual workers in the plantation model,
absolute employment is in fact very low at Zambeef plantation compared to the out-grower
area and commercial farm area. Both permanent and casual employment are on the decline
around the plantation and out-grower areas. Around the plantation, our informants argued
that declining employment is due to the use of precision farming techniques that displace
labour.

Table 3. Employment status of household members by model.

Household members
employed (%)
Location of Household members
Model area employment Permanent Casual Total unemployed (%) Count
Plantation Inside plantation 5.7 1.5 7.2 82.5 388
Outside plantation 6.7 3.6 10.3
Total 12.4 5.1 17.5
Out-grower Inside scheme 4.5 3.0 7.5 81.6 470
Outside scheme 7.9 3.0 10.9
Total 12.4 6.0 18.4
Commercial Inside commercial 5.9 16.0 21.9 73.3 474
block
Outside commercial 1.6 3.2 4.8
block
Total 7.5 19.2 26.7
Source: LACA Zambia Quantitative Survey and authors’ computations.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 585

At the Zambeef plantation, administrative and other skilled jobs were taken by
migrants7 from across the country, while unskilled jobs were shared by both migrants
and people from the locality. As one participant in a focus group discussion observed:

There is no employment; very few people are employed; weeding is done by chemicals and
harvesting by combine harvesters … Zambeef brings workers from its other farming areas to
work here in Chiawa; it is like we do not know how to work.

The out-grower block farm creates a relatively large number of jobs as most jobs in sugar-
cane cultivation are done manually. Most labour for planting, weeding, irrigation and appli-
cation of fertilisers and chemicals is sourced locally from the surrounding villages. It was
established from key informants that the management service provider to the out-grower
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

scheme recruits as much as possible within the area, but that not all families benefitted
from the employment if there was no one in the family who had the right physical charac-
teristics. Thus, labour for cane harvesting, which constitutes the bulk of all labour in cane
growing, is sourced from far afield, mostly from western Zambia. A respondent in a focus
group discussion observed:

Only those who had been earlier employed and considered to have experience are the ones that
keep on getting the jobs. Those who have never worked are not getting the jobs; we get the
forms and apply but we never get the jobs.

There are also gender and generational differentials in employment opportunities. Inter-
views revealed that women occupy a high proportion of the less-skilled jobs in all the
model areas and are under-represented in managerial and supervisory roles. Women predo-
minate in highly seasonal and low-quality unskilled jobs, such as weeding and crop scout-
ing, while men dominate irrigation, planting, cane cutting, driving and motor vehicle
maintenance. While the out-grower scheme has an obligation to employ at least one
member of each ‘out-grower’ household, it is largely male members who are availed
such opportunities. As a woman responded in a focus group discussion:

At first they were taking one person from each household for employment; now this year they
are not doing that. Last year there were 30 people taken; only three were women of the 30
working there. This year they say only one woman has been taken …

As with gender, generational differentials with regard to employment opportunities across

the three models are significant. On the plantation, more older adults over 35 years are
employed than youths,8 on both a permanent (37 versus 27 percent) and casual (11
versus 6 percent) basis, and younger people, especially men, seek better paying jobs in
the nearby safari lodges. In the commercial model also, more adults are employed on a per-
manent basis than youths (30 versus 18 percent), while the trend is opposite for casual
employment, where more youths are employed than adults (67 versus 45.5 percent).

7
Many migrants were employed at the estate when it was under Masstock Africa, the company that
established the estate. Due to the labour intensities of the crops grown then, thousands of migrant
labourers were brought in from southern province and Lusaka rural areas. A number of these were
retained in their jobs as the estate changed ownership, and employment of other people whether
skilled or unskilled is through social networks of relations.
8
According to the Zambian National Youth Policy (2006), a youth is someone aged between 18 and
35 years.
 586 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

However, given the poor wages prevailing here, the benefits young people can derive from
greater participation in casual work are limited. More youths than adults are employed in
the out-grower enterprise both on a permanent (31.5 versus 12.5 percent) and a casual
basis (20 versus nine percent), as adults concentrate on their own farming, or are share-
holders in the ‘out-grower’ scheme. Access to employment on the ‘out-grower’ block is
facilitated by the out-grower scheme management, with each shareholding household
being guaranteed one job opportunity since many young people are excluded from ‘out-
growing’ arrangements which are contingent on ownership of land.
Education is important in determining access to employment across the three models
particularly for skilled jobs. On the plantation, secondary education was key to getting
both permanent and casual employment. In the out-grower block and the commercial
farms, those with secondary schooling and above dominate the ranks of permanent employ-
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

ment, with those with primary schooling dominating the casual jobs.
Gendered wage differentials are significant, with women being confined to low-grade
unskilled and low-paying jobs. The quality of employment, as reflected in wages, also
varied significantly across the three cases as well as between men and women and
between permanent and casual workers. Our quantitative survey showed that the highest
paid were casual workers in the ‘out-grower’ model (USD 77 per month), followed by per-
manent workers at the plantation (USD 60 per month), followed by permanent workers at
the out-grower model (USD 42 per month). Wages were lowest in the commercial farming
area, with permanent and casual workers receiving USD 30 and USD 18 per month,
respectively. Across all models, women were consistently paid less than men for permanent
jobs (USD 48 versus USD 64 on the plantation, USD 31 versus USD 43 in the out-grower
scheme and USD 17 versus USD 33 in the commercial farms).
Our survey thus found that employment created by the plantation and out-grower
models was far less than that created by other enterprises surrounding the models, while
the commercial model at Mkushi created more employment overall than the other enter-
prises surrounding the model, although largely casual and poorly paid. Indeed, areas
around Zambeef plantation in Chiawa and Magobbo out-grower scheme in Mazabuka
have high activities offering employment opportunities by other players, such as tourist
establishments and other small- and medium-scale farms and the Nakambala Sugar planta-
tion, and other large-scale sugar out-growers, respectively.

Livelihood outcomes
How are livelihoods in the surrounding areas of the different agricultural models affected?
The results are complex, showing different patterns of accumulation and class formation,
and differences across groups depending on their engagement with the commercial enter-
prise in the area. For example, households employed by the plantation area significantly
increased the size of their cultivated area in the last five years by using their wages to
increase crop output, while their counterparts in the out-grower and commercial farming
areas only reported very small increases in cultivated land. Although households employed
in the out-grower scheme had comparatively high wages, these households had the least
land, holding only 0.5 hectares on average. The wage earners in the out-grower scheme
with smallest land areas were often young people, newly establishing homes, and under
the patronage of more elderly heads of households who had placed their land under
sugar cane cultivation. These young people have come to depend largely on employment
on the out-grower scheme and elsewhere due to land scarcities arising from commercial
sugarcane production, and the absence of intergenerational transfers of land to young
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 587

people as land is tied in the sugar scheme. Households employed in the commercial farming
area at Mkushi comparatively had the lowest wages, and could not increase the area under
cultivation despite abundance of land. Those who were benefiting from the presence of the
commercial farms in Mkushi and acquiring land were investing resources from non-farm
income from outside.
How then did the changing agrarian dynamics affect people’s food security around the
three farming models? In order to assess the food security status in the model areas respon-
dents were asked how often their households reduced the amount of meals consumed or
skipped a meal altogether, and how this had changed over the past five years. Our
survey data indicate that perceptions of households’ food security situation over the past
five years differ across groups in the three case study sites. Households around the out-
grower model were more food secure, with the biggest reported improvement in food secur-
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

ity experienced among households receiving dividends from the out-grower shareholder
scheme. Households working on the scheme block only but with no land in the scheme
also reported improvements. The food security for these groups of households is related
to the incomes received from dividends and wages, respectively. However, households
in the surrounding areas, without access to the out-grower–shareholder scheme and not
employed, reported a declining food security situation, reflecting the growing pattern of
differentiation in the area. The deteriorating food security situation for households
outside the scheme is not a result of the scheme but a consequence of poor food crop har-
vests from dryland farming due to extreme weather events of droughts and floods in the
area, as well as a lack of farming inputs. In the Mkushi area, those around the commercial
farm area reported improvements, while those employed by commercial farms at Mkushi
farm block as casual workers reported no improvements or declines. Households employed
in the Zambeef plantation reported improved household food security, whereas those
without wage employment reported growing food insecurity.
Rural livelihoods are transforming in the areas around all three case studies, reflecting
new class dynamics and changes in local agrarian systems. Around the plantation and com-
mercial farming area sites, a peasant-worker class is emerging among employed house-
holds, as wage workers straddle between employment and small-scale farming to
compose livelihoods in a context of low wages. Around the out-grower model, new
dynamics of accumulation have emerged where a new ‘peasant-shareholder’ class has
pooled family land into a consolidated block in the out-grower scheme in return for
monthly dividends that are quite significant, with a net average income of USD 2999 per
annum per household in our sample. This income stream is captured by older men, who
have monopolised opportunities for accumulation, marginalising women and youths. As
a result, control over income has become more unequal within households.

Local economic linkages

One of the potential outcomes of commercial agriculture is the benefit through their lin-
kages into the local economy, creating multiplier effects. The spillovers include technology
transfer, input and output markets and social and productive infrastructure (Smalley 2013;
Sipangule and Lay 2015; Glover and Jones 2015). Our study found a different mix of local
economic linkages around the three models (Table 4). Our study found that the commercial
farming area has relatively stronger and more localised economy linkages than either the
plantation or the out-grower scheme. The plantation model typifies the ‘enclave
economy’ that is poorly integrated into the surrounding communities and the local
economy (Ferguson 2006). The Zambeef plantation purchases machinery from Lusaka
 588
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

Table 4. Types of local economic linkages by model.
Development of
Case/model Sources of inputs Output markets Sources of labour productive infrastructure Technological spillovers
Plantation: Zambeef Nothing locally in Chiawa Largely within Largely in southern No input depots No synergies between Zambeef
Chiawa Estate Largely Lusaka Zambia to province outside Irrigation infrastructure plantation and local smallholder
(agrochemicals, Zambeef’s Chiawa only for the plantation production system
fertilisers, equipment) subsidiary A few within
Other countries the region companies Chiawa
(equipment) Zimbabwe A few from South
Africa and
Zimbabwe
Commercial farming Locally in Mkushi Within Zambia Largely within Irrigation infrastructure Emerging satellite farms adopting
area: Mkushi Farm (agrochemicals, Other countries in the Mkushi area Inputs depots crops and technologies used on
Block fertilisers, equipment) region A few from other the farm block
Other major towns areas within Skills spillovers
(agrochemicals, Zambia
fertilisers) A few from other
countries in the
region
Out-grower: Locally in Mazabuka Within Zambia Largely within Irrigation infrastructure Skills development to workers
Magobbo Town (fertilisers, Within the region Mazabuka area only for the sugar through learning-by-doing as
Sugarcane Out- agrochemicals) The EU Cane-cutters from scheme block apprentices on the scheme block
grower Scheme Lusaka (agrochemicals) Western province No input depots farm and Nanga Farms
South Africa (equipment, A few within
sugar seed varieties) Magobbo
community
Source: Authors’ compilation.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 589

and other inputs both from Lusaka and Mazabuka town in Southern province, demonstrat-
ing its enclave nature, as all its expenditures on farming inputs and machinery take place
more than a 100 kilometres away.
The out-grower scheme – operating on the principle of block farming, an extension of
the sugar estate – sources farming equipment both locally in Mazabuka and Lusaka and in
countries around the region, mostly from South Africa, where Zambia Sugar’s parent
company Illovo is based. Because the Magobbo out-grower scheme operates on block
farming model, all services from land preparation to harvesting and haulage of cane are
undertaken centrally by a management service provider, thereby bearing the hallmarks of
a plantation.
Because of the scale and technology mix of farming, and the concentration of farmers at
Mkushi, some farming equipment and other inputs are sourced within the area as a number
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

of regional and international suppliers of machinery and inputs have established depots
within the farming block to reduce distance for farmers from input sources. One such
example is AFGRI Ltd. of South Africa, a major financier of commercial farming and agri-
business operations in Southern Africa, which supplies John Deere tractors and other farm
machinery and maintains a demonstration farm at Mkushi (Chu 2013). Farmers within the
Mkushi farming area also purchase equipment and inputs from Lusaka and other major
towns on the Copperbelt province. Outputs for three models end up in different markets,
with sugar and maize from the out-grower and plantation/commercial farms, respectively,
being exported, while other crops such as wheat and soybean from Chiawa and Mkushi are
sold domestically, but not to local markets.
Thus, both the Zambeef plantation at Chiawa and the out-grower block scheme at
Magobbo operate largely as ‘enclave’ operations with few links to the local economy,
beyond employment in both instances, and, in the case of Magobbo, shareholder revenue
streams. Indeed, wages from employment and dividends for the shareholder out-grower
farmers around the out-grower model on one hand, and employment in the plantation
and commercial models on the other, have engendered substantial spillovers into the
local economy through consumptive linkages that stimulate petty trading around the
three models. The greatest integration seen is at Mkushi, where commercially oriented
smallholder and medium-scale farmers surrounding the commercial farms have collabo-
rated with those with farms on the farm block. In this area, productive infrastructure
such as electricity, irrigation dams, roads and input depots has created positive spillovers,
with satellite farms emerging and becoming involved in new value chains by adopting some
of the crops and technologies introduced in the block. Commercialisation around the block
has also opened up opportunities for off-farm incomes through trade and the growth of a
non-farm rural economy. The emergence of this class of commercialising farmers
appears to constitute a dynamic of accumulation that is elite driven, as small- and
medium-scale farmers acquire land through off-farm incomes. The result is a diversified
and growing local economy around Mkushi. Such effects are not seen in areas surrounding
either the plantation or the out-grower case study sites, and although schools and clinics
have been established for company employees, local people in surrounding areas have
no free access.

Conclusion
Commercial agriculture has mixed effects – on land access, employment, livelihood pat-
terns and economic linkages. Simple narratives, whether focusing on land dispossession
or employment creation, do not stand up to empirical scrutiny.
 590 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

Our case studies of very different forms of commercialisation in Zambia show

how employment is important, but not extensive. As Li (2011) and Deininger
(2011) also observe, our study notes that the institutional arrangements in the three
agricultural models, the types of crops cultivated and the scale of technology
employed in the production processes all have an impact on the quantity and
quality of jobs and where and how labour is sourced. Mechanisation and ‘precision
farming’ reduce job opportunities in the Zambeef plantation in Chiawa; most jobs
go to in-migrants, leading to economic ‘leakages’ from the local economy via remit-
tances. While casual wage labour is generated in the Mkushi commercial farming
area, it is low paid and does not improve livelihoods and household food security.
The out-grower model on the sugar estate at Magobbo is atypical, in that it provides
dividends to a limited group of shareholders, and guaranteed well-paid employment
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

for some, but not others.

Both the plantation and the out-grower scheme operate as ‘enclaves’, benefitting a
restricted group, and showing few linkages to the wider economy. The long-established
plantation has not generated widespread landlessness recently, although there are isolated
hotspots of imminent displacement. The out-grower scheme, by contrast, experienced a
net decrease of landholdings, as participating smallholders who previously held more
land were required to hold only a maximum of six hectares, while at the same they had
to encroach on pastoral land as this was turned into residential dwellings for out-growers
relocated to give way to block farming. In the commercial farming area, the Mkushi
farm block is not expanding, but is creating demand for land around the area, as new inves-
tors – both from the local area and from outside – are creating new farms, linked to the com-
mercial farm block. Others in the area are, however, not benefiting, except through low-paid
agricultural labour.
In all case study areas, processes of agrarian change resulting from the commercial
investments are occurring. These are generating social differentiation, with particular
negative effects on women and youths. Those who benefit most are the (mostly older
male) shareholders with stakes in the sugar out-grower scheme; those linking up with
thriving commercial farming in the Mkushi farm block, creating ‘satellite’ medium-
scale commercial farms nearby through investments of capital from outside the area
and the accumulation of land; and those with skilled permanent employment
(mostly from outside the area) at the Zambeef plantation. Those who lose out are
those without access to the shareholder out-grower plots; those unable to invest in
new commercial farms around Mkushi; and those unable to combine low-paid
casual work with small-scale agriculture, because of limited rainfall (in Chiawa) or
land scarcity.
In sum, the outcomes are complex, depending on diverse relations with commercial
arrangements, mediated by a range of factors, including employment conditions, access
to ‘shareholding’ out-grower arrangements and possibilities through access to land and
capital for linking up with commercial farming. Thus, as a result of agricultural commer-
cialisation in an area, some benefit, but others do not, and a dynamic social differentiation
is seen in all sites, which differentially affects men and women, young and old. Thus,
depending on class, gender and age, different people are able to insert themselves into
the commercial agricultural economy in different ways. However, the terms of incorpor-
ation differ across the sites, depending on the institutional arrangements, the level of capi-
talisation and mechanisation of the commercial farms, the type of crop, and the wider
livelihood opportunities in the area.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 591

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Vera Rocca and Cyriaque Hakizimana for their contribution to fieldwork for
the study, and especially Ruth Hall, Ian Scoones and Dzodzi Tsikata, and two anonymous reviewers,
for helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper. The authors remain responsible for any remain-
ing errors and omissions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

This JPS Forum presents the findings of a study conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia, coordinated
by the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS; www.plaas.org.za) at the University
of the Western Cape, South Africa, and under the auspices of the Future Agricultures Consortium
(FAC; www.future-agricultures.org). The research was funded by the ESRC-DFID Joint Poverty
Alleviation Programme (grant number ES/J01754X/1) and provided inspiration and insights to
inform the FAC’s next phase of work: the Agricultural Policy Research in Africa (APRA) programme.

References
Aabo, E., and T. Kring. 2012. The political economy of large-scale agricultural land acquisitions:
Implications for food security and livelihoods/employment creation in rural mozambique.
Working Paper 2012–004, United Nations Development Programme.
Adams, M. 2003. Land tenure policy and practice in Zambia: Issues relating to the development of
the agricultural sector. Oxford: Mokoro Ltd. Draft. January 2003.
Agrifood Consulting Limited. 2005. Smallholder agricultural commercialization strategy: Synthesis
study on options for smallholder commercialization (Project P091803 under the Zambia
Smallholder Commercialization Strategy). Bethesda, Maryland: Final Report prepared for the
Government of Zambia and the World Bank.
Amberntsson, P. 2011. The past of present livelihoods: Historical perspectives on modernization,
rural policy regimes and smallholder poverty – A case of Eastern Zambia. PhD Dissertation,
University of Gothenburg.
Anseeuw, W., et al. 2012. Transnational land deals for agriculture in the global south – Analytical
report based on the land matrix database. Number 1, April.
Anthony, K. R. M., and V. C. Uchendu. 1970. Agricultural change in Mazabuka, Zambia. Stanford:
Food Research Institute.
Baglioni, E., and P. Gibbon. 2013. Land grabbing, large-and small-scale farming: What can evidence
and policy from 20th century Africa contribute to the debate? Third World Quarterly 34, no. 9:
1558–81.
Baumann, P. 2000. Equity and efficiency in contract farming schemes: The experience of agricultural
tree crops. Working Paper 139, Overseas Development Institute, London.
Berry, S. 1993. No condition is permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and Indaba Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (CSO/MAL/IAPRI). 2015. Rural agricultural livelihoods survey data.
Lusaka, Zambia: IAPRI.
Chapoto, A., et al. 2012. Agricultural transformation in Zambia: Alternative institutional models for
accelerating agricultural productivity growth and commercialisation. Working Paper No. 64.
IAPRI, Lusaka.
Chenoweth, F., J. Knowles, and G. Ngenda. 1995. Settlement programmes. In Land tenure, land
markets, and institutional transformation in Zambia, ed. M. Roth, and S. G. Smith, 173–198.
Madison: Land Tenure Center. LTC Research paper 124.
Chu, J. 2013. Creating a Zambian breadbasket: ‘Land grabs’ and foreign investments in agriculture in
Mkushi District, Zambia. LDPI Working Paper 33.
 592 Chrispin R. Matenga and Munguzwe Hichaambwa

Collier, P., and S. Decorn. 2009. African agriculture in 50 years: Smallholders in a rapidly changing
world? Paper present at an Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050, 24-26 June, 2009,
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Economic and Social Development
Department.
Cotula, L. 2009. Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international
land deals in Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
De Schutter, O. 2009. Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of core principles and measures
to address the human rights challenge.
Deininger, K. 2011. Challenges posed by the new wave of farmland investment. Journal of Peasant
Studies 38, no. 2: 217–47.
Deininger, K., et al. 2011. Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable
benefits? Technical paper. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Droppelmann, K. 2004. Report on the ACF outgrower survey analysis in 2004. Lusaka: The
Agricultural Consultative Forum Secretariat.
ECIAfrica Consulting (Pty) Ltd. 2012. Potential of non-traditional exports in Zambia – Growth,
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

employment and distribution of wealth and income. Third Draft Report submitted to the
International Growth Centre (IGC).
FAO. 2013. Trends and impacts of foreign investments in developing country agriculture: Evidence
from case studies. Technical paper. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Ferguson, J. 2006. Global shadows: Africa in the neoliberal world order. Durham: Duke University Press.
German, L., G. Schoneveld, and E. Mwangi. 2011. Processes of large-scale land acquisitions by
investors: Case studies from Sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Global Land Grabbing, 6-8 April 2011, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, LDPI.
Glover, J. D. 1984. Contract farming and smallholder outgrower schemes in less-developed countries.
World Development 12, no. 11/12: 1143–57.
Glover, S., and S. Jones. 2015. Can commercial farming promote rural development in Sub-Saharan
Africa? Evidence from Mozambique. Paper prepared for presentation at the ‘2015 World Bank
Conference on Land and Poverty’, March 23-27, 2015, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Gould, J., et al. 1998. How sectoral programs work: An analysis of education and agriculture sector
programs in Zambia, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Nepal. Policy Papers, 1/1998. Helsinki: Institute
of Development Studies, University of Helsinki.
GRZ. 1985. Cabinet circular No. 1 of 1985. Lusaka: GRZ.
GRZ. 1995. Land Act, 1995. Lusaka: GRZ.
GRZ. 2005. Farm block development plan 2005–2007. Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National
Planning.
GRZ. 2006. Fifth national development plan: 2006–2010. Lusaka: Ministry of Finance and National
Planning (MoFNP).
Hall, R., I. Scoones, and D. Tsikata. 2015. Africa’s land rush: Rural livelihoods and agrarian change.
Woodbridge: James Currey.
Hall, R., I. Scoones and D. Tsikata. 2017. Plantations, outgrowers and commercial farming in Africa:
Agricultural commercialisation and implications for agrarian change. Journal of Peasant Studies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1263187
Hansungule, M. 1998. Land law and policy in Zambia. Paper prepared for OXFAM, GB, Lusaka.
Himonga, C. N., and M. L. Munachonga. 1991. Rural women’s access to agricultural land in settle-
ment schemes in Zambia: Law, practice, and socio-economic constraints. Third World Legal
Studies 10, no. 4: 59–73.
Jayne, T. S., et al. 2014. Is the scramble for land in Africa foreclosing a smallholder agricultural
expansion strategy? Paper prepared for presentation at the World Bank Land and Poverty
Conference, March 26, 2014, Washington D.C.
Kakulwa, C. 2012. Rural development through agriculture: A history of Mununshi Banana scheme
1967 to 2010. MA Thesis, The University of Zambia, Lusaka.
Kalyalya, J. H. 1988. A history of Nakambala Estate, 1964–84. MA thesis, University of Zambia.
Keyser, J. C., and R. V. van Gent. 2007. Competitive commercial agriculture in Africa (CCAA):
Zambia competitiveness report. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Environmental, Rural &
Social Development Unit, Africa Region.
Klepper, R. 1979. Zambian agricultural structure and performance. In Development in Zambia: A
reader, ed. B. Turok, 137–148. London: Zed Press.
 The Journal of Peasant Studies 593

Li, T. M. 2011. Centering labor in the land grab debate’. Journal of Peasant Studies 38, no. 2: 281–98.
Matenga, C. R. 2016. Outgrowers and livelihoods: The case of Magobbo block farming in Mazabuka
district in Zambia. Journal of Southern African Studies. doi:10.1080/03057070.2016.1211402.
Oakland Institute. 2011. Understanding land investment deals in Africa. Country report: Zambia.
Oakland: The Oakland Institute.
Sichone, F. 2008. Land administration in Zambia with particular reference to customary land. Paper
presented at a seminar organized by the Zambia Land Alliance, 28th June 2008, University of
Zambia, Senate chamber, Lusaka.
Sipangule, K., and J. Lay. 2015. The impact of foreign large-scale land acquisitions on smallholder
productivity: Evidence from Zambia. AGRODEP Working Paper 0011.
Sitko, N. J., and T. S. Jayne. 2014. Structural transformation or elite capture? The growth of ‘emer-
gent’ farmers in Zambia. Food Policy 48: 194–202.
Smalley, R. 2013. Plantations, contract farming and commercial farming areas in Africa: A com-
parative review. Land and Agricultural Commercialisation in Africa Project (LACA) Working
Downloaded by [University of Western Cape] at 23:35 28 November 2017

Paper.
Sparks, D. L. 2012. Large-scale land acquisitions in Sub-Saharan Africa: The new scramble?
International Business and Economics Research Journal 11, no. 6: 687–96.
Sugiyama, Y. 2007. Agricultural policy change and indigenous agriculture: Experience and Re-evalu-
ation of a shifting cultivation system in northern province, Zambia. African Study Monographs
34: 91–113.
Tschirley, D., I. Minde, and D. Boughton. 2009. Contract farming in Sub-Saharn Africa: Lessons
from cotton on what works and under what conditions (Regional Strategic Analysis and
Knowledge Support System, Issues Brief, No. 7.
White, B., S.M. Borras, Jr., R. Hall, I. Scoones, and W. Wolford. 2012. The new enclosures: Critical
perspectives on corporate land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39, no. 3&4: 619–47.
World Bank. 2007. Zambia smallholder commercialization strategy. Report No. 36573-ZM.
Sustainable Development, AFTS1, Country Department 2, Zambia, African Region, World Bank.

Chrispin R. Matenga is lecturer in the Department of Development Studies, School of Humanities

and Social sciences, The University of Zambia. He was Zambian Coordinator of the research project:
‘Land and Agriculture Commercialisation in Africa’ (LACA) under the Future Agricultures Consor-
tium from 2012 to 2015, conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. His most recent publication is:
‘Outgrowers and livelihoods: the case of Magobbo smallholder block farming in Mazabuka District
in Zambia’, Journal of Southern African Studies (2016), doi:10.1080/03057070.2016.1211402
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Munguzwe Hichaambwa is a senior researcher and Business Development Manager at the Indaba
Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI), a non-profit company limited by guarantee, and
carries out agricultural policy research and outreach, serving the agricultural sector in Zambia so as
to contribute to sustainable pro-poor agricultural development. He was a researcher on the research
project ‘Land and Agriculture Commercialisation in Africa’ (LACA) under the Future Agricultures
Consortium from 2012 to 2015, conducted in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia.