By Dr Michelina Andreucci

TO realise better returns on their investments, ‘reserve’ entrepreneurs often evaded official marketing channels as they indulged in side-marketing their beasts to the highest bidder; they side-marketed grain as well.  

With regard to the disposal of grain, considerably more rapoko was disposed of to ‘natives’ at the mines than to authorised traders since they obtained a better price through this method.

It is impossible to assess the amount of grain disposed of in this way, except for the estimated total sales and income through legitimate channels and others, for the 1952 harvest, that were given as 8 250 bags of maize which fetched a total of ₤2 400; 123 bags of rapoko fetched ₤3 200 and 241 bags of groundnuts fetched ₤2 900. 

All cattle sales in the rural areas at that time, were conducted in terms of the Native Cattle Marketing Act No. 23/47, whereby a seller was issued with a permit to sell cattle before entering into an Agreement of Sale. Such permits were issued under Section 6 of the Native Cattle Marketing Act. 

One such permit issued in 1949 read: “Permission is hereby granted to …. of …., Gatooma District, to sell, otherwise than at a Native Department Sale, the following number and class of cattle: Cows 0, Bulls 0, Oxen 0, and Young Stock 1” 

The validity of these permits usually ranged from seven to 30 days.  

Buyers, other than ‘natives’, were required by law to endorse on the permit the number of cattle bought.  

The endorsement was to be signed and dated by the buyer. The permits were used for purposes of supervising and monitoring destocking measures, but indigenous stock owners often found ways round the Cattle Marketing Act which was not designed to benefit them in any way.

Thus, lack of adequate land, the forced adjustment to the contour ridges regime, an increase in dipping fees (tax) and the destocking measures, together, fomented a lot of discontent among people living in the rural areas.

In March of 1961, the Native Commissioner (NC) for Gatooma (Kadoma) complained that he had been inundated with applications by ‘natives’ of other districts for permission to move to Sanyati Reserve.  

He argued that: “Allocation in Sanyati was completed last year (1960) apart from some 1 600 acres which was block allocated and where individual allocation will be done this year (1961).”

The Native Commissioner proceeded to say: “The possibility of allocating extra people on consolidated holdings in the ‘Jesi’ area is being investigated by the Technical Block, but this is very much ‘in the air’ and to all intents and purposes there is no more land available in Sanyati … While it is difficult to refuse these applications and while I cannot quote any authority for my right to do so, nevertheless I am doubtful of the wisdom of allowing them in, since they will merely increase the number of landless people in the reserve and probably be a source of trouble in the future.”

Due to the shortage of land, many people were ploughing on the grazing areas, in spite of the threat of prosecution.  

For encroaching onto the grazing lot, offenders were charged under Section 42 of the African Affairs Act which empowered law-enforcement agents to prosecute them for “…disobeying the orders of the Chiefs and Headmen against this illegal practice.” 

The law, nevertheless, proved quite problematic to enforce since some ‘kraal heads’ themselves were also ploughing on the grazing area.  Frequently, complaints were heard that: “The grazing area is being completely taken up and that the cattle are dying of starvation.”

Land shortage was compounded by the demand to erect contour ridges for conservation purposes.

A strategy for the agricultural development of the area was adopted after a visit by the Planning Team from the Department of Native Agriculture to Sanyati Reserve between June 8-11 1954. 

On this tour of the reserve, the acting assistant director of Native Agriculture was accompanied by the Animal Husbandry Officer and the Land Development Officer (LDO); at the conclusion of which a discussion was held with the Assistant Native Commissioner (ANC).  Soil conservation was one of the main focus.

It was generally observed, during the visit, that a grass cover in grazing areas should be maintained and that the concentration of cattle “… in certain parts was leading to the commencement of serious erosion.” 

The visitors further observed and recommended that: “In the arable areas, a system of grass buffer stripping on grade should be commenced without delay. These buffer strips should be 4 (1,2m) vertical feet or a maximum of 70 yards (64m), apart. The drainage channels should be properly demarcated with banks, and road strips similarly so (a stone beacon could be used for road strips). The arable land should be individually allocated, on the lines of the Land Husbandry Act. Later when grass is established on the drainage channels, contours could be constructed, preferably by the landowners themselves, paid for from the Native Development Fund. The construction of stone terraces or banks at the approaches and vicinity of dips should [also] be done within the next year or two.”

Using this information, following discussions, it was agreed that the priority development work which the Land Development Officer (LDO) was to carry out during 1955, among other things, was to include agricultural extension and soil conservation work.

Extension work, through demonstrations, was to be provided by the Land Development Officer (LDO), Demonstrators and Supernumeraries or Extension Assistants (when available), emphasising early planting, compost making, stocking and winter ploughing, the greater use of ‘mhunga’ (a good variety to be distributed free), tseta ‘kaffir’ corn and radar as well as the tackling of mixed cropping and to ensure its complete disappearance, especially after individual allocation. 

Compost making, the rotating of crops and other such measures constituted what were described as “…improved methods of agriculture.”  

Each agricultural demonstrator was ordered to commence buffer stripping on grade and drainage channel demarcation with the help of the Soil Conservation Officer. 

A stop-gap measure was put in place to counteract any possible resistance against buffer stripping: “Where the landowners refuse to co-operate in the marking of these buffers trips with their ploughs, it should be done with the Soil Conservation oxen or the tractor. The Soil Conservation tractor with the disc terrace should demarcate the drainage channels etc., and gangs should finish there off.  Permanent rangers should be appointed to see that buffer strips are not ploughed in the ploughing season.”

Based on these general observations and preliminary findings, the Land Development Officer for Sanyati, proceeded to submit to the Director of Native Agriculture an ‘excellent’ Technical Survey Report on agriculture in Sanyati; its arable and stock position as well as its conservationist thrust. 

Dr Michelina Rudo Andreucci is a Zimbabwean-Italian researcher, industrial design consultant, lecturer and specialist hospitality interior decorator.  She is a published author in her field.  For comments e-mail: linamanucci@gmail.com