BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

NAME MATAIRE MUNYARADZI

COURSE TITLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PLANNING

COURSE CODE DG 420

PROGRAMME BACHELOR OF SCIENCE HONOURS IN DEGREE IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

LECTURER DR I MBERENGWA

ASSIGNMENT TITLE

ARTICLE REVIEW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE FAST TRACK LAND REFORM PROGRAMME ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN ZIMBABWE: A CASE OF VUNGU RURAL DISTRICT (2000-2009)
BY: CHIEDZA KIMBERLEY CHABHONGORA, CRISPEN HAHLANI AND PERCYSLAGE CHIGORA (2010)
TITLE: An analysis of the impact of the fast track land reform programme on disaster management in Zimbabwe: A case of Vungu rural district (2000-2009).

PROBLEM: The fast track land reform program (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe did not adequately address disaster management and environmental sustainability. The process was chaotic and failed to meet the real needs of the people but in fact strived to achieve political agendas. The FTLRP was poorly planned because there was no supportive infrastructure and systems that were meant to assist the newly resettled famers. As such production on the farms dropped significantly leading to the farmers engaging in other livelihood activities which were detrimental to the environment and which increased the vulnerability of the people to drought.
OBJECTIVES:
• To analyze the implications of the FTLRP on disaster management in Zimbabwe. • To establish the link between the planning of the land reform programme, the role of development agencies, the livelihood activities taken by the newly resettled farmers and the contributing of these activities to the accumulation of disaster risk in Zimbabwe.

METHODOLOGY: The authors used focused group discussions and interviews. The key informants were the local; leadership and AGRITEX as well as EMA officials. They were the primary sources. Secondary data sources were the various literatures pertaining to the subject. The research design was a case study. The study was carried out in two wards in Vungu rural district.
FINDINGS: The study found out that disaster management is not a government priority and the resettlement of people has been a major contributor to the accumulation of disaster risk. The study area lies in agro ecological region 4 and it required adequate training to practice productive farming, yet this was not done. The programme was rigid and characterized by uncoordinated resettlement which led to the breaking up of social bonds. The programme did not utilize the indigenous knowledge systems. Agriculture did not succeed in the area and the people resorted to sell of fire wood, bee hunting, gold panning, commercial sex work, maricho and hunting as livelihood strategies. These activities expose the people to a number of disasters which are either environmental or human induced.

CRITIC
The abstract of the paper points to the fact that disaster management has gained a lot of hype in recent years with many sectors seeking to prioritize disaster risk reduction and management. It is therefore imperative that a major programme like the land reform programme must have considered disaster management in its planning. From the onset, the authors highlight that the land reform programme failed as it was advised by political rather than a development-oriented programme. In addition the authors state that: ‘’Many scholars agree that the FTLRP failed, not because it was a bad program, but because there was inadequate preparation and planning before its inception, as well as implementation and that in itself is a major weakness’’ P 158. A good historical back ground the environmental and disaster concept in Zimbabwe was given. The literature gap pertaining to the subject was explicitly laid out when the authors highlighted that: ‘’There is very little literature that links the land reform issues with disaster management from a Zimbabwean perspective’’ p 146. Thus the authors had a big task to introduce this new concept to disaster and land use in Zimbabwe.
The authors were able to highlight the causes of vulnerability and risk that have resulted from the fast track land reform programme. The various livelihood strategies in the article were fully articulated and expertly linked to how they increased disaster risk in the study area. Disasters are presented as a result of everyday livelihood activities which are meant to sustain people because of failed agriculture. A good conceptual analysis of indigenous knowledge was provided and parameters for its understanding as well as historical development were outlined and also noting of its centrality in agricultural development and disaster management.
The methodology used was appropriate as it was able to produce the results that addressed the objectives of the study but the authors mainly focused on interviews and less on group discussions. The authors could have used more methods like questionnaires for validity and triangulation purposes. The sample was also small for inference purposes; the authors used only two wards out of a possible 16 which makes it difficult to generalize the findings.
The last section offers recommendation on how best to integrate disaster management as well as environmental management in all national programmes. They call for the allocation of responsibility in disaster risk reduction.
Overally, the paper is satisfactory as it is able to link the landmark land reform programme with disaster risk management as well as the cause and effect relationship that exists between them.