Lancaster House Agreement On Land In Zimbabwe

The unilateral declaration of independence of Rhodesia of Great Britain meant that black nationalist groups had to act quickly to secure liberation. Their strategy would be to establish camps in neighbouring Zambia and Tanzania and enter Rhodosian territory in the style of guerrilla warfare (Baxter 2016). First, the superior effectiveness of the Rhodes government armed forces and their secret services has blunted all insurgent attacks (Baxter 2016). However, ZANU and ZAPU rebels turned outwards for help and training, and received them from China and the Soviet Union (Baxter 2016). Foreign support for the nationalists, the new front that opened on the border with Mozambique and the duration of the war, combined to finally paralyze the War Effort of the Rhodesian government. Both insurgent groups have been able to enjoy enormous support in the countryside and in local areas because of their position of land reform as a top priority. The white government, which realized that it was largely overtaken by the natives, combined with the aversion to continue to wage a costly war, decided to come to the negotiating table. The United Kingdom also felt stranded because of the events in Rhodesia and played a mediating role in the negotiations. The colonial government of southern Rhodesia integrated the country into five different production zones, which roughly corresponded to rainfall patterns. [22] Region I included a region of the eastern highlands with significantly higher rainfall, most conducive to the cultivation of diversified cash crops, such as coffee and tea. Region II was highly developed, including in the east, where the country could be heavily used for grain cultivation, such as maize, tobacco and wheat.

Region III and Region IV suffered from periodic droughts and were considered animal, in addition to crops that required little rainfall. Region V was weak and unsuitable for crop cultivation due to its dry nature; However, limited livestock farming remained viable. [23] Land ownership in these areas was determined by race under the terms of the South Rhodesian Rural Contribution Act, passed in 1930, which reserved Regions I, II and III for white settlement. [23] Region V and a segment of Region II, where precipitation variability was greater, were organized in Tribal Trust Lands (TTLs) exclusively for property and use in sub-Saharan Africa. [22] The result was two new problems: first, in white-owned areas, the ratio of land to population was so high that many farms could not be fully exploited, and some first-rate white-owned farmland was unused. [19] Second, the legislation has led to forced overexploitation of the soil in TTTs due to overcrowding. [22] In the early 19th century, the Shona were conquered by the northern Ndebele (also known as Matabele), which began the process of the civiification of the country of Zimbabwe. [14] Although Ndebele`s elite were not interested in culture, land ownership was considered one of the main sources of wealth and power of an individual – the others were cattle and slaves.