Zambezia (1995), XXII (i).DRY FIELDS AND SPIRITS IN TREES Š A SOCIALANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION INTERVENTION INNYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREA, ZIMBABWEDUMISANIMAGADLELA AND PAUL HEBINCK1AbstractThe article examines some of the social consequences of governmentintervention to develop an area through the introduction of irrigated agriculture.The scheme in question was started in the late 1950s, and was largelypopulated by immigrant farmers from other areas in Zimbabwe. The articlelooks at social dynamics between irrigators and dry-land farmers, betweenlocals and newcomers, and between farmers and government agencies.These ideas are expressed in issues of leadership, in religious beliefs andpractices, and adaptations of the technology. Farmers have not simply passivelyaccepted ideas and structures imposed upon them, but have adapted thetechnology and the structures to suit their various purposes, and their relationswith those about them.THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES the social dynamics of colonial irrigation interventionin a communal area in Zimbabwe. Central to the analysis are the varioussocial and political outcomes of such an intervention. We first considerwhy irrigation farming was introduced in Nyamaropa Communal Area, andthen we focus on certain relevant intervention issues.To understand the objectives of such an intervention and its impacton the socio-cultural fabric of the area and its people, we need to considerthe history of the area before, during and after the intervention, themanner of intervention and the actors and agencies involved. By sheddinglight on how such an intervention is managed by the state and otheragencies and how particular actors (or groups of actors) in the area try tocontrol development in the valley, we show what kinds of expected andunexpected outcomes are emerging from the process of intervention, howthese emerge and how local actors respond to them.We understand intervention as a social process aiming to transformeconomic and social life in a targeted community or region, set in motionby agencies originating from outside the targeted community. The view ofthe outsiders (such as the managers of the intervention process) of the1 Dumisani Magadlela is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of Zimbabwe.He is researching under the research programme on Zimbabwe, Women, Extension, Sociologyand Irrigation (ZIMWESI) as part of his PhD. Paul Hebinck is a lecturer in the Department ofSociology of Rural Development, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.4344IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREALOCATION OF RESEARCH AREA0r-\%%Ł50 100 150 kilometres/--ŁŁŁ//s x\ \^ \x, yOther P/i4/)c ^vInternational BoundaryV. ^tm^ Provincial BoundaryyO- Nyamaropa Communal LandjI^ULAWAYO>>k~*'NŠŠ*1I r-./ 1 TV »y»"s»»«^i( <MANICALAND/ /1 V / ^J, ~ -=v iy^yŠ f«»w( )/\ J rV> r/-VI yŁilocal community is frequently based on generalized and biased notions oftheir technical abilities to bring about changes in their social and economiclives. This image of the 'target group' is limited and distorted by ideologicalconsiderations and socio-political relationships. It results in a failure toconsult the target group on the design and implementation of interventionprogrammes. Targeted people are considered as passive receivers ofknowledge, technologies and organisational models, and the social andcultural fabric of the targeted community is largely ignored. Interventionhas therefore been regarded as a linear model of change with expected orplanned outcomes by development practitioners, who may overlook thenegative outcomes and not fully understand unexpected outcomes ofdevelopment interventions.Intervenors neglect lifeworlds of those who are intended to benefit frominterventions, and consequently problematic situations have emerged in theD. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK45NYAMAROPA IRRIGATION SCHEMEHyarumKa Canal \ W: - Ł *. NYAMAROPANightStorag*'.:Ł.IRRIGATIONShiri(mw«B.C.Sdnyamaropa \*Projwsed^Expansiony j} School VArea ~course of intervention. These problematic situations have been identifiedanalytically as 'development interfaces'. A development interface isa critical point of intersection or linkage between different social systems, fields orlevels of social order where structural discontinuities, based upon differences ofnormative values and social interest, are most likely to be found (Long, 1989,1, 2).The notion is used to stress the dynamic nature of social interfacesand their potential for conflict, that is, different social 'systems' interactbut fail to combine to form a new social system (see also Arce and Long,1992, 214). The understanding of the development interface is crucial forcoming to grips with the dynamic of intervention in general and with thedifferent and unexpected outcomes of intervention in particular. Thisarticle describes how the social interface was produced in Nyamaropa,and what is happening at the interface.46 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAINTERVENTIONS BY THE COLONIAL STATEIN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREANyamaropa communal area is located about 180 km north-east of theeastern border city of Mutare. The area borders on Mozambique at theGairezi river. The original peoples of Nyamaropa belong to the Barwe-Tonga ethnic group of the Shona peoples. They were practising some formof localised, rather restricted, shifting cultivation. Each household (imba)would have about three sites to shift amongst. According to elderly farmersinterviewed, cultivation was not their sole, not even major, source oflivelihood. They also hunted, fished and gathered for their food.Two interventions by the colonial state dramatically changed the lifeof the original inhabitants. The enactment of the Land Apportionment Act(1930) by the colonial government led to the eviction of whole familiesfrom their home areas which were designated for White commercialfarming. Nyamaropa communal area, which was not gazetted for Whitecommercial farming, attracted many people from the area around Nyangatown about 60 kilometres away, and from other places in Zimbabwe. Somecame from as far as Harare, Chipinge, Rusape, Buhera and Mutasa. Theysettled in Nyamaropa or close by and started farming. Subsequently, theyvisited the headman of the neighbourhood and kraalheads2 in the area topay mutete, a gift to show respect, a form of homage to the traditionalcustodians of the land. The intervention of the colonial state in otherareas of Zimbabwe brought different groups of people together inNyamaropa, whose origins are still recognized by everyone as they areeasily identifiable by their names and totems. Those who came from otherplaces are labelled by the original inhabitants of the area as newcomers oraliens (wawuyi); the original inhabitants and their descendants areidentified as locals (wemuno or wepano).The second intervention brought irrigation technology to the area.The idea to construct an irrigation scheme in Nyamaropa emerged in themid-1950s when an African agricultural demonstrator noticed the irrigationpotential of the area. The valley of Nyamaropa appeared to have fertilesoils and a dam to hold the water to supply the valley was easy to buildnearby. The construction of the irrigation scheme started in 1956. Bothforced and voluntary labour from local villagers and from people displacedfrom their home areas was mobilised by district commissioners to constructcanals.32 Kraalhead' is the administrative term for the local village head formerly in charge of atax register. In most areas, he was originally the head of an identifiable village.3 Reynolds (1969) studied the development of the irrigation scheme shortly after itscompletion in 1960. His work provides a detailed analysis of how and through what networksthe newcomers arrived in Nyamaropa: through kinship networks, church groups, visits andhearsay.D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 47The irrigation scheme started operating in 1961. Some irrigators saythat the first crop was in 1960, but there are conflicting accounts of this.From the beginning, the scheme was cultivated by the newcomers and bythe locals. The majority of the locals, however, rejected the idea of irrigating,and only a few of them joined. It did not fit their life styles as they did notimagine themselves as the full-time farmers that irrigation required. Theyalso resented paying irrigation fees for land they considered theirs andaccused newcomers of taking over their land, and of being puppets to thecolonial authorities who were confining people to poor and arid areas.The locals were given the choice of joining the scheme as irrigators ormoving off the land onto the surrounding hills. Many took off toMozambique. Some settled on the slopes of the hills, and now providemuch of the labour on the scheme.The irrigation intervention brought about yet another distinction inNyamaropa: those who irrigate (warimudambd), the majority of whom arethe newcomers and a minority are locals, and those who are engaged indry-land farming. Dry-land farming is primarily rain-dependent or rain-fedagriculture and it represents a way of farming different from irrigatedagriculture in which water supply is normally constant, reliable and secure.The government department of Agricultural Technical and ExtensionServices (Agritex) created two separate sections for irrigated and dry-landfarming. Later on, in the course of development, the distinction alsoacquired another meaning as dry-land farming became associated with'traditional' and irrigation with 'modern'. Furthermore, since the countryexperiences severe periods of drought, farmers and Agritex associateirrigation increasingly with relief from drought.Although many dry-land farmers today are involved in part-timeirrigation especially in winter, they still do not regard themselves asirrigators, and refer to most of the full-time irrigators as aliens. Newcomersand locals have been in conflict for more than 30 years now. We shallreturn to the issue of emerging conflicts and cooperation between thedifferent social groups.When the scheme was being constructed and the plots being allocated,no-one anticipated problems that would result in a re-allocation of plotsand compel authorities to introduce a block system, in which each type ofcrop is grown in a separate block and irrigators have plots in each ofseveral such blocks. As farmers came into the scheme, they were givenfour-acre plots randomly. Indeed, they chose and cleared their own four-acre plots, and, if the irrigation officer deemed their performance excellent,they were given extra land (often two acres) as a reward. This was not anextension of the plot they were already working on, but on a different sideof the scheme. Consequently, farmers had to move between plotskilometres apart in the scheme. The pattern and variable sizes of land-48 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAholdings precluded a block system of irrigation. When Nyamaropa irrigationscheme started, prospective farmers were requested to clear their ownplots for cultivation, probably so that they would identify with the projectand regard the plots and the whole scheme as their own. The projectseems to have succeeded in this objective.The colonial intervention in Zimbabwe and Nyamaropa communalarea triggered off dramatic socio-cultural and economic changes. Alongsideirrigation, intervention brought new administrative and economicstructures and agencies to the area. The involvement of the Department ofNative Agriculture in agricultural production of smallholders increasedsubstantially. After independence in 1981, the newly formed Agritex becameresponsible for the dissemination of information to both the irrigators anddry-land farmers about crop recommendations, crop rotation schemesand new technologies. New crops arrived in the area, such as tobacco,cotton, wheat and hybrid maize, most of which were to be produced forthe market.In the period during which Nyamaropa irrigation scheme wasconstructed, those introducing irrigation assumed that intensifiedproduction would speed up the commoditisation of small-scale communalproduction (see Roder, 1965, p. 125; Reynolds, 1969, Introduction). Theyhoped that this would stimulate 'development' for the benefit of both theproducers themselves and their prospective markets in the adjacent dry-land area, the urban centres and the national economy at large.4 Theintroduction of cash crops brought also other new agencies of change,such as buyers of cotton, tobacco and maize. In addition, new forms ofgovernance were introduced in the form of local government structuresoperating alongside the long-established tribal authorities comprisingchiefs, headmen of neighbourhoods and kraalheads. Some of these wereAfrican leaders appointed by the colonial authorities to help administerreserves, especially in tax collection and land allocation (see Bratton1978; Weinrich, 1971, pp. 9-28).Intervention created another structure. The daily management of thescheme today is in the hands of the Irrigation Management Committee(IMC) and Agritex. The IMC is elected by the irrigation community and isheaded by a chairman, assisted by a vice-chairman, treasurer, secretaryand eight members5. Together with Agritex, the IMC decides on water4 This was obviously a double fanged objective. African agriculture was not supposed todevelop so much as to affect or compete with European farmers. It was also realised by theauthorities that it would be to the advantage of the European to keep African fannersproductive so that they could supply food for employed workers. See for instance Mosley5 IMC members are not paid for their workŠthey only receive travel allowances. One ofthe reasons that they stand for election is that membership is a status symbol, a prestigiousposition in the irrigation community.D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 49distribution but not on maintenance fees, which are set by the government.For this purpose, a set of by-laws were formulated, and accepted by ageneral meeting of the irrigation community. These by-laws lay down therules of conduct of the irrigation scheme. They indicate, amongst otherthings, that if maintenance fees are not paid on time farmers will beevicted if the IMC and Agritex decide so. The IMC is supposed to enforceby-laws, collecting fines from farmers who violate them, to convey meetingsinvolving irrigators and to act as some kind of broker for the marketing ofirrigation produce.Presently Nyamaropa irrigation scheme covers 422 hectares, has about400 plotholders and its main crops are cotton, maize, tobacco, beans andwheat. Table 1 below shows some of the production patterns in terms ofhectarage per crop over five seasons.Table 1HECTARAGE PER CROP, NYAMAROPA IRRIGATION SCHEME, 1991-5.Season1990-11991-21992-31993-41994-5Maize146,2140189,2190177Cotton194,1181,2141,3175,4193,6Tobacco47,773,761,062,265,4Bean119?19189,150Wheat76,92291,9130?Others28???5,5Source: Agritex Offices, 'Nyamaropa Irrigation Scheme'.Hectarage figures in Table 1 show that subsistence and food cropsremain as popular in the irrigation scheme as cash crops, which are highlyrecommended to farmers by Agritex in government irrigation schemes.Most Nyamaropa farmers prefer first to secure their food reserves beforethey venture into cash crop production. The almost permanent co-existenceof subsistence and commercial production is one of the less talked aboutoutcomes of irrigation intervention in smallholder irrigation schemes.SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED OUTCOMES ANDTHE SOCIAL REALITIES OF INTERVENTIONNyamaropa irrigation scheme can be regarded partly as a settlementscheme for displaced people (Reynolds, 1969, 14), and partly as a'development project' to stem rural-urban migration by giving people analternative source of livelihood through commercialized agriculture. Bothobjectives were partially fulfilled but not without conflict. A look atNyamaropa shows that the mode of intervention in the area failed torespect the culture and social lives of the original inhabitants. When the50 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAAfrican agricultural demonstrator noticed the irrigation potential ofNyamaropa, the District Commissioner held meetings with locals but failedto convince them to join the irrigation scheme. They were told to eitherstay and irrigate or move off the land onto the surrounding hills. The factthat their life-styles included other activities than farming did not matterto the intervenors. As long as they could persuade a few of the localpeople to join, and as long as the large group of displaced victims of theLand Apportionment Act kept flocking in to take up the plots and set theproject rolling, administrators saw no problem. But the reality was different,complex and full of conflict.Nevertheless, the intervention had some success. Through interviewswith irrigators, dry-land farmers, and representatives of developmentagencies, as well as from observations and attending meetings, weencountered various socially constructed versions of success attributedto development interventions in Nyamaropa communal area. We alsoencountered accounts which point to problematic aspects of theinterventions as various conflicts or interfaces emerged in the process.One such positive construction is that the scheme succeeded becauseit managed to resettle many people who had been displaced from theirhome areas. Through the construction of the irrigation scheme, thesepeople gained access to new and irrigated land. In addition, as pointed outby Agritex staff and most of the irrigators, farmers were enabled to producevaluable crops such as cotton, tobacco, maize and beans, which satisfyboth their subsistence and cash needs.Irrigation provides them with the necessary produce to pay, in cashor in kind or both, for the agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer, fuel, draughtpower) and the labour they need (waged, or from family and kin), and totake part in community life, spiritually, culturally as well as socially. Whatirrigators stress is, as one expressed it, that 'everything is coming fromthe soil we work on'. Irrigation gave them the opportunity to becomesuccessful farmers (hurudza) enabling them to live a decent life, that is,own a brick house, eat well, and be able to send their children to school.Another irrigator characterised schooling by referring to 'learning frommoney from the land'.While the production of cash crops by most irrigators may indicate ageneral shift from subsistence cultivation towards the realisation of theobjective of commercialisation, hardly any irrigators moved totally awayfrom subsistence production. Both irrigators and surrounding dry-landfarmers practise a combination of subsistence and commercial production.Their lives and the needs of their families and their position in thecommunity do not allow them fully to commercialise their irrigationproduction. What is particularly striking in Nyamaropa is that some verysuccessful farmers, who have set up shops with earnings from their irrigatedD. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 51plots, still produce for both home consumption and the market. Extensionworkers on the scheme pointed out cases of farmers whom they felt werefully commercialised. Subsequent interviews, however, and our observationof the production, processing, storage, and disposal of their produce,indicated that they do not sell all that they produce; they distributesubstantial amounts to friends and relatives whose harvests may not havebeen good for that particular season.6 Other irrigators have repeatedlycomplained that the plots that they were allocated are too small for anyone of them to produce on a scale large enough to commercialise fully.They say that they would like to be fully incorporated into the market butthey have problems marketing their crops, since some buyers demandquantities too large for them to produce.Marketed production in Nyamaropa irrigation scheme has not reachedthe level expected by the originators of the scheme. Rural development isfluid, unpredictable and contradictory. Probably none of the staff of theirrigation department would have thought that the scheme would be avital source of income and food supply for scores of surrounding dry-landfarmers and hundreds of Mozambicans who flock into the irrigation schemefor different reasons. There has been an impressive diffusion of thescheme's impact in terms of food support to a wider radius of humansettlements which in itself is a positive achievement even if it was not inthe specific objectives of government irrigation policy (cf. DERUDE, 1983).There is another angle on the relative success of irrigation interventionin Nyamaropa. A number of dry-land farmers are amongst the bestproducers of maize, cotton and tobacco in the communal area, competingfavourably with irrigators. Irrigators benefit from the advantage of relativelysecure water resources and three cropping seasons, against dry-landfarmers' one cropping season and dependence on erratic rainfall patterns.Nevertheless, during the early years of the scheme, farmers said thatthere was no significant difference between irrigation and dry-land farmingbecause there were good rains. In some years, dry-land farmers producedmuch more than irrigators because the latter's crop would be waterlogged.Besides that, dry-land farmers cultivate larger portions of land thanirrigators.From the point of view of the implementing agency, Agritex, the schemeis partially successful because of Agritex's involvement in improvingproduction levels of farmers. Because of their management capabilities,6 This obviously prompts one to think that maybe the conceptual application of marketproduction and commercialisation as concepts should be flexible and adaptable to specificsituations. We feel that talking of these terms in 'percentages' and 'extents' does help solvethe problem 'to an extent', although it is likely to leave economists looking for ways toconcretise the issues involved in the particular socio-economic processes. Long (1986) providesan instructive theoretical framework for the analysis of commoditisation of agriculture.52 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAtheir technical skills and knowledge of improved crop production, andsometimes their good working relationships with irrigators, the scheme isfunctioning. But the scheme could do better if for example waterdistribution was made more efficient by both farmers and the extension(managing) agency. Agritex staff have blamed farmers for cropping thewhole scheme, which means that it takes longer to get round a full cycle ofwater allocations to the plants, resulting in some farmers' crops wiltingwhile the dam is full. Agritex staff acknowledge that the scheme givesirrigators opportunities for decent living. In spite of that, Agritex's frontlineworkers argue that Nyamaropa farmers are bad investors and not all ofthem always listen to Agritex's technical advice which they considerinappropriate: 'Farmers still do their own things, mixing old and newways.' This view is supported by some of the 'successful' irrigators whostate that thanks to Agritex they are able to produce in a modern way.These 'modern' farmers 'fully' adopted Agritex's recommendations.Another set of social constructions about intervention is emerging inthe area. These constructions capture some of the unexpected outcomesof irrigation intervention. Some irrigators point out that Agritex's technicaladvice is helpful and that it is a government managed scheme, but theyfeel that Agritex 'should not push them around and run their lives'. Theywant autonomy to do things as they wish. Not everybody is happy with, orable to follow, Agritex's crop recommendations, and some continue tolook for 'alternative' ways of reproducing soil fertility or rotating theircrops. Most irrigators emphasize their own information and knowledgenetworks, in which Agritex is not involved and where they like to discussmatters related to farming and markets.Yet another reality on the scheme is that not all irrigators are full-timeirrigators as the by-laws laid down by the IMC and Agritex require them tobe. These imply that an irrigator should not have other jobs or businessesand should not have a dry-land plot. A number of irrigators are migrantlabourers and do not work on the scheme regularly. Most of the work isdone by their wives and children. There is much leasing and swapping ofplots in Nyamaropa. Agritex staff estimate that more than 60 per cent oflegitimate irrigators are involved in such deals every season. Sucharrangements are hailed by those who benefit from them as the outstandingcontribution of the irrigation scheme to a wider population. However,neither the IMC nor Agritex pay attention to such illegal practices. Manyfamilies receive remittances from their children or close kin who areworking outside the scheme. These developments exaggerate the successof the scheme as remittances and incomes from migrant labour subsidisecommoditised agriculture on the scheme. For many irrigators, thesesources of cash are essential for their survival because they help thembuy farming inputs and implements.D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 53The by-laws imply that dry-land farmers should not have access to thescheme, since they are not considered to be irrigators. The reality, however,is that many of them do irrigate and see irrigated farming as an integralpart of their survival strategy. Another unexpected reality of contemporaryNyamaropa irrigation scheme is that many successful irrigators and localbusinessmen are in a position to rent land from other irrigators.Nyamaropa is a product of various interventions resulting in a socialand cultural melting pot. Out of this melting pot many conflicts emergedand continue to arise. The IMC and Agritex are at the moment in conflictabout present and future management of the scheme, especially withregard to water distribution and seasonal cropping patterns. Expansion ofthe scheme to give more dry-land farmers access to irrigated plots and theintroduction of a block system divide the irrigation community into twoconflicting camps headed by two different types of local leadership. Anotherconflict, sometimes latent and sometimes open is between various beliefsystems. The local perception held by headman Sanyamaropa and hispeople of the role of ancestors is not always accepted by irrigators, inwhose view local traditions stifle development and progress. Most irrigatorsinstead became members of many churches in and around the irrigationscheme.OUTCOMES OF INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPAThree outcomes and associated social processes are central for theunderstanding of contemporary Nyamaropa and characterize well thesocio-cultural fabric of Nyamaropa communal area. Firstly, we look at thetwo different types of local leadership and their support networks, anissue well illustrated in the expansion of the scheme and the introductionof the block system. Secondly, we discuss the clashes between differentsystems of values and beliefs. A third issue concerns the temporaryappropriation of land by businessmen and local dry-land farmers gainingaccess to the scheme. This point may be seen as a reflection of the relativesuccess of development interventions in Nyamaropa.We do not argue that there is a total separation of the two communitiesthat met in Nyamaropa communal area because of various externalinterventions. Although the two groups represent different lifeworlds andinterests, many relationships have emerged in the history of Nyamaropaand have contributed to some merging of the groups. The three outcomeswe have chosen clearly reflect both the conflicts between the twocommunities and the emerging, mutually beneficial, social relationships.Central to understanding the conflicts is the issue of water distributionand access to water. On the one hand, the headman and his followers,54 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAmostly dry-land farmers, believe that the shortage of rain is a result ofmisunderstandings between the people and their spiritual realm. On theother hand, irrigators believe that their water shortage and distributionproblems are mainly caused by incompetent management on the part ofsome irrigators, their IMC and Agritex. Furthermore, the water problem iscompounded by dry-land farmers and local businessmen involved in landdeals with irrigators who either are too old to work all their land or are inarrears in their maintenance fees with Agritex.In exploring the crucial issue of water, we analyse the meaning of thedistinction between locals and newcomers and between dry-land farmersand irrigators. The nature of conflicts and the cooperative relations betweenthe two social groups present an interesting case for the analysis of socialinterfaces in Nyamaropa.TYPES OF LEADERSHIP IN NYAMAROPATwo conflicting types of leadership have emerged in Nyamaropa. Onetype is illustrated by Simba, the chairman of the IMC and supported by thenewcomer-irrigator community. He is a newcomer himself and aninteresting character (see Magadlela, 1995, for a more comprehensiveaccount). The second type of leadership is embodied in Sando, an irrigatorand the previous chairman of the IMC, but a man who is closely associatedwith the local community of irrigators and dry-land farmers. He was bornin the area and sees himself as a local irrigator with strong ties, includingkinship ties, with the dry-land farming community.The rivalry between these two leaders is rooted in the fact that theyrepresent communities having different views on the future of the scheme.The immigrant irrigators want to defend their interests in the irrigationscheme, to defend what they have and to secure enough water. The dry-land farming community, together with local irrigators with whom theyshare religious and cultural repertoires, also have an interest in the schemesince most of them now see the advantage of irrigation and wish to gainaccess to the scheme. They tend to identify with headman Sanyamaropa.The rivalry between the leaders, however, is only partly explained bythe interests of the two groups they represent. Simba and Sando havedifferent and conflicting personalities and both have political ambitions.During the elections in 1993 for local leadership within the ZANU(PF)political party, the local (irrigator) community leader, Sando was electedto the post of party chairman Š Simba was the runner-up. Probablysensing the danger of being constantly frustrated at every turn, Sandogave the chairmanship over to Simba, who is the present chair, and is alsothe chairman of the IMC. According to some irrigators and Agritex staff,D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 55Sando is more popular because of his style of leadership7. He is said toconsult more with the people and takes their advice more seriously thandoes his newcomer opponent.Sando frequently expresses his concern about the future managementof the scheme. He is concerned about the planned expansion of thescheme since he fears that if the current water storage capacity is notincreased with it, there will not be enough water for the scheme. On theother hand he feels, as a local, strong affiliations with the dry-landcommunity, some of whom will benefit from joining the irrigation schemeon a permanent basis. Although dry-landers have for a long time resentedmost developments associated with the irrigation scheme, they see theadvantage of irrigation Š it offers the security of a constant water supply,opportunity for second and third cropping seasons and the opportunityto plant late summer and winter crops such as beans, vegetables andwheat. This awareness is growing, particularly since the severe droughtsZimbabwe has experienced over the last decade have depleted their foodreserves.The leader of the newcomer-irrigator community, Simba, has heldmany leadership positions in his career. He claims that he serves theinterests of the irrigator community, otherwise, as he stated once, hewould not have been re-elected. He argues that it is his obligation to servethe irrigation community, so he has to stand up to all outsiders and makesure that they do not bring in ideas that will hurt the irrigators.He is concerned about communication between Agritex and irrigators,which in his view often fails. An example he frequently puts forward onfarmer-Agritex relations and the breakdown of communication is that ofwater shortage in the scheme. He cites the fact that farmers sent a requestto Agritex a few years ago to look for alternative sources of water. It wassuggested that getting water from the perennial Gairezi river nearby wouldbe a good alternative source, but there has been no response yet, at leastnothing formal from government. Simba has been in the forefront ofattempts to get funding for extracting water from the Gairezi river. Althoughthat idea was initially raised in the 1960s,8 he points out that the presentthrust for the Gairezi project was recently re-introduced by himself andone of the local prominent businessmen when they realised that the watershortage was increasingly becoming desperate. Sando, on the other hand,feels that this option is not feasible, technically and economically.7 The view of Agritex staff may be biased towards the leader of the group of irrigatorswho supports the block system, but they appear to be on good working terms with bothleaders.8 Documentary evidence of this project could not be traced. Most historical documentson Nyamaropa irrigation scheme were said to have been destroyed during the liberation warin the late 1970s.56 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAThe intention of Agritex to introduce a block system illustrates thetensions between the two communities and the two leaders. In 1993,Agritex suggested to farmers that they should adopt the block system, inwhich each of the four blocks within the scheme is dedicated to a particularcrop at particular times. This would enable farmers to co-operate andproduce in bulk for the market.9 For Agritex, the block system means aneasier way of managing the scheme and makes best use of the availablewater.Sando and some local irrigators support the block system because itwould mean a redistribution of irrigated land and farmers with less landcould have access to plots in each of the four blocks of the scheme. Sandoargues that the existing scheme could be much better utilised as someirrigated plots are partly idle and land could become available for dry-landfarmers. He also points out that those opposing the block system areinvolved in illegal deals with fellow irrigators and fear exposure as a resultof the change. It seems, however, that Sando is losing support fromnewcomer irrigators on this issue.Simba, backed by most early irrigators, strongly opposes the idea of ablock system. Irrigators are so attached to their individual plots that talkabout losing an acre of one's field raises tense emotions among most ofthem. They argue that they treated their plots very well over the years andcannot afford to change to plots that may have been under poor husbandryfor years. In addition, most farmers in Nyamaropa believe that every onetreats their land with some kind of personalised magic that lasts for a longtime and works to give the farmer good harvests if not tampered with.They believe that such magic works only when that farmer, or a relativewho knows the family values, works on that land. Agritex staff say thatevicting all irrigators and re-allocating plots all over again could be asolution, but add that it may just be too dramatic, if not traumatic, a moveand should not even be contemplated. Simba in his capacity as chairmanof the IMC, threatened violent reprisals to those who advocated the blocksystem. Irrigators feel that the extension agency only wants to make itsmanagement easier at the expense of the farmers. They are refusing toadopt the block system, saying that Agritex is trying to cheat them intoaccepting something that offers them less security than before.A number of case studies indicate that this advantage does not necessarily occur. It iseven argued that it may reduce the productivity of agriculture as irrigators act as tenantsrather than owners of the land (see Manzungu, 1995).D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 57DRY FIELDS AND 'SPIRITS IN TREES': CLASHESBETWEEN BELIEF SYSTEMS IN NYAMAROPADifferent groups in Nyamaropa have different religious repertoires. Somenewcomer irrigators see locals as less progressive because of their customsand rituals of ancestral worship. At least 19 Christian churches flourish inthe area, and the majority of newcomers have joined these and say thatthey are more modern than locals. Some locals resent the denigratingmanner in which newcomers treat local traditions. Their view of localtradition is that it is backward and uncivilised and that it 'stiflesdevelopment'.An example is the observance of chisi, a day sacred to the guardianspirits of the land, and on which the soil should not be tilled (Bourdillon,1987, 70 ff). Newcomers say that chisi no longer fits their perception ofmodern farming, since irrigation for them means hard work. A successfulfarmer, as one irrigator expressed it, 'is someone who is in the field'. Otheraccounts point out that 'we came here to farm, not to wait for holidays, weare in business here, why is it that those who own shops do not shut themdown on Fridays to observe chisiTThe groups do not engage in open conflict, but each criticises theactions of the other. Newcomers say that local irrigators have jettisonedtheir ways in preference for modern life when the irrigation scheme camebecause they realised that their previous ways were less progressive.Some of them joined churches, and seemingly rejected their ancestralworshipping practices, but made sure that they kept social ties with dry-land relatives intact. One of the local irrigators commented, 'Everybodyasks for rain in their own way. I am going to the church, others go to thechief.' He attends those meetings where people dance for rain, but he doesnot believe in them. 'You have to follow what your environment does.'Later on he added, 'You have to show solidarity' and 'You support othersin their endeavour.' 'You have to rally behind the resolution shared by therest of the community.' Although he is a Christian he still obeys the rulesof chisi. 'A long time ago there were many chisi days, six. This is too many.'Nowadays there are only four days per month which he obeys. He hastenedto add, however, that spraying and irrigating is allowed on chisi days.Presently, the headman and his aides have been accusing irrigatorsand churches of having tainted, if not destroyed, traditional sacred placesby worshipping in or near them, and warned the irrigators to observechisi. Together with the local irrigator leader, Sando, the headman and hisaides expressed their deep concern about the future expansion of thescheme. The enlargement will be at the expense of a place very sacred tothe spirits of Sanyamaropa's people. The local Agritex officials made itclear that this is not their concern and stipulated that their mission is to58 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAmanage and improve irrigation opportunities in the area. By referring tothe tasks set by Agritex at national level, they pointed out that their task inNyamaropa is to overcome the existing hurdles which they conceptualisein terms of securing water, disseminating crop recommendations androtation schemes, and making more land available for irrigation.Headman Sanyamaropa and his advisors convened a meeting at theheadman's home in August 1994, which was attended by village andchurch leaders, almost all of whom are irrigators. This meeting illustratedthe current conflict between the two groups. The subject of the meetingwas the erosion of traditional values and beliefs which, according to theheadman and kraalheads, was caused by the introduction of Christianity.He associated this erosion with the arrival of people from other areas ofZimbabwe to join the irrigation scheme, and he indirectly accused irrigatorsand their religious practices of causing drought. He said:Some of you go and pray in rivers and on mountains, and you chase our spiritsaway. They go and live in trees, the big ones you see around here, but you comeagain and cut down the tree. Where do you think the spirit goes after that? It hasnowhere to stay, and you will not have rains when you have unhappy spirits.One of the kraalheads quickly demanded that irrigators too shouldobserve chisi days to please the spirits. Church leaders responded bysaying that they appreciated the views of the traditional authorities andthat they are allowed to pray freely. They concurred that it is important toobserve chisi and to attend traditional ceremonies. However, there was anair of dissent amongst church leaders who felt that they were entitled totheir own religious practices without obligation to traditional cults.In this respect, a new irrigation intervention may either widen orreduce the gap between the two social groups practising different religiousrepertoires. Past interventions unintentionally created sets of interfaces,which it seems that Agritex and irrigators are not able to handleharmoniously all the time.BUSINESSMEN RENTING LAND AND DRY-LANDFARMERS GAINING ACCESS TO IRRIGATED PLOTSAccording to the by-laws of Nyamaropa irrigation scheme, irrigation is afull-time activity. What full-time means exactly is difficult to establish. If itmeans that irrigators are to survive from the produce of their plots andalso to arrange the work by procuring labour from their own families, thenthe reality has diverged from the laws. Many irrigators have rented outplots to fellow irrigators for cash or swapped plots among friends. Manyrely on help from outside the scheme in the form of remittances from theirkinsfolk working in town, or draught power and labour from friends or dry-D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEB1NCK 59land farmers. If being 'full-time' irrigators implies that irrigators shouldnot cultivate dry-land plots or dry-land farmers should not irrigate, thenagain the reality has diverged from the laws. Many dry-land farmers arepart-time irrigators and some irrigators also cultivate dry-land plots.We now consider how and why this is happening, and what it tells usabout relationships between irrigators and dry-land farmers. We alsoconsider differentiation amongst irrigators themselves.We begin with the last dimension of the social reality of Nyamaropairrigation scheme, the differentiation among the irrigators. The analysistakes us back to when the scheme began with the arrival of newcomers.They came either alone or only with their close families and, as also notedby Reynolds (1969, 46), had no family or tribal connection withSanyamaropa's people. He concludes:The Newcomers enjoyed independence from tribal affiliations having left theirtraditional homes. Amongst the Newcomers, family and church loyalties replacedthe growth of a sense of community and common identity... Although the villagerswho had joined the scheme [the locals] displayed a growing frustration with theirties to the villages, they remained intricately involved in village and tribal life(Reynolds, 1969, 59).Reynolds's survey of 1962 established that about 46% of the newcomerswere under 40 years old, while of the local irrigators the percentage was29%. The majority of them (87%) were monogamous. Nearly every familyin the scheme had young children. Many of the monogamous men hadonly married after they had turned 30 and then frequently to a girl ten ormore years younger. The second wives in polygamous marriages weresomewhat younger still than their husbands. It was usual for men over 40to have infants and their wives were likely to bear more children. Sincenewcomers had young families, and since kinsfolk were not around, theyhad to turn to dry-land farmers or to other newcomers for labour. Most ofthe labour was hired and paid in cash or in kind (and this is still common).The sharing of implements and oxen amongst irrigators was a usual practicein the scheme. Many of the irrigators who settled on the scheme laterwere initially supported by fathers, brothers or fellow church memberswho had settled previously.Now, the average age of Nyamaropa's irrigators is above 50 years.Most elderly irrigators can no longer work full-time on their plots. Theygave their children a good education 'from money from the land', whichhelped them get jobs in towns. Now these children rarely come home tohelp their parents work the land. Consequently, the common practice is tohire labour from families of dry-land farmers, and previously from60 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAMozambique.10 Transactions between irrigators and dry-land farmers arenot always valued in cash. There is a tendency to prefer being givenaccess to irrigated land to grow wheat for food, especially in winter, tobeing paid in cash.Other forms of transactions between irrigators and dry-land farmersare induced by indebtedness of irrigators. The severe drought which hitthe country in 1991-1992 created a situation whereby many irrigators,particularly those facing labour constraints, could not afford to paymaintenance fees to Agritex. Some of them then approached dry-landfarmers or local shop owners who are irrigators or dry-land farmers forfinancial assistance. This was given in return for use of part of theplotholder's irrigated land.The obvious consequences are that irrigators in leasing and rentingtransactions help create a situation whereby there is more hectarage ofwheat every winter season than expected, resulting in a depletion of thelittle water meant for 'July beans'. Nyamaropa irrigators normally growbeans twice a year, in March after their summer maize and in July at theend of winter. Although we do not know the exact number of transactionsbetween businessmen and irrigators, what is known is that the formertend to favour deals with irrigators which entail 100 per cent cropping ofthe farmer's plot by the lesee. The nature of such transactions worsenswater distribution problems in the scheme and is therefore part of theconflict among irrigators and between irrigators and dry-land farmers.Agritex and the IMC are aware of these practices but do not seem able todo anything about them.CONCLUSIONSThe analysis has shown that the beneficiaries are not simply passivereceivers of interventions Š they manage to rework and redesignintervention by interpreting it in their own ways. The analysis drew partlyon the accounts of irrigators and dry-land farmers themselves on howthey experience and interpret their own lives and how they are affected byirrigation intervention. Development project planners and policy makersfor some of Zimbabwe's communal areas who try to choose betweenraising market outputs and sustaining the welfare of the producers arebound to meet major difficulties in their missions if they do not addressspecific social and culturally defined needs in their broadness.Since the peace settlement in Mozambique in 1994, many permanently employedMozambican labourers returned to their homes. This has aggravated the problem of labourshortage among irrigators.D. MAGADLELA AND P. HEBINCK 61The analysis has presented Nyamaropa as a product of colonial stateinterventions resulting in a situation where different people originatingfrom different places are bound to live and work together. Interventionscreated divisions between relatively prosperous irrigators and dry-landfarmers and among irrigators, culminating in various, so far unsolved,conflicts. The analysis has pointed to various social constructions of theirlifeworlds. The relevance of the distinction between newcomers and locals,which some people in the area still maintain, may be questioned, especiallyas some of the distinguishing factors tend to fade away with time.Alternatively, the categories could be replaced simply by irrigators anddry-land farmers who continue their antagonisms towards each otherafter over three decades living adjacent to each other and working together.In our view, the distinction is a construction of different farmeridentities and is used in particular negotiations and specific situations.The headman, for example, still reproduces the construction 'locals versusnewcomers' when he refers to problems causing rain shortages. The IMCchairman, Simba, refers instead to irrigators and dry-land farmers, andsometimes to local and newcomer irrigators in his campaign against theblock system. From a different point of view, Sando uses the sameconstruction as Simba in his argument for the block system. Agritex staffpredominantly use the irrigation/dry-land distinction, but sometimes referto the local/newcomer construction when, for example, discussing issuespertaining to farmers' performance in agricultural production. What iscrucial is the centrality of water resources (rain and irrigation water) andthe embeddedness of social interfaces and power relationships in waterissues. This is dealt with in detail in Magadlela's forthcoming study of thearea.A critical point raised in this article is the handling of different interfacesby different actors involved in various domains or levels of socialinteraction. To take the melting pot metaphor further, one may see theconflicting nature of emerging relationships in Nyamaropa between theheadman and leaders in the irrigation community as a necessary ingredientfor a development recipe. Part of this recipe is that relations between dry-land farmers and irrigators is mutually beneficial. In some cases the socialgroupings cooperate closely for their survival as shown in the provision oflabour for food or cash. Intervenors need to realise all this. It will beinteresting to see how the various actors will handle the resulting conflictsamong irrigators. In the meantime, however, the struggle about water andaccess to food and production resources continues.62 IRRIGATION INTERVENTION IN NYAMAROPA COMMUNAL AREAReferencesARCE, A. and LONG, L. (1992) 'The Dynamics of knowledge: Interfacesbetween bureaucrats and peasants', in LONG, N. and LONG, A.,Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice inSocial Research and Development (London and New York, Routledge).BOURDILLON, M. F. C. (1987) The Shona Peoples: An Ethnography ofContemporary Shona, with Special Reference to their Religion (Gweru,Mambo Press).BRATTON, M. (1978]) Beyond Community Development: The Political Economyof Rural Administration in Zimbabwe (Gweru, Mambo Press).GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE (1983) Department of Rural Development,Policy Paper on Small-Scale Irrigation (Harare, Derude).LONG, N. (ed.) (1986) The Commoditization Debate: Labour Process, Strategyand Social Network (Wageningen, Wageningen Agricultural University,Wageningen Sociological Studies, No. 17).LONG, N. (ed.) (1989) Encounters at The Interface: A Perspective on SocialDiscontinuities in Rural Development (Wageningen, WageningenAgricultural University, Wageningen Sociological Studies, No. 27).MOSLEY, P. (1983) The Settler Economies: Studies in The Economic Historyof Kenya and Southern Rhodesia 1900-1983 (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press).MAGADLELA, D. (10-12 Jan. 1995) 'The Mobilisation of Social, Economicand Political Resources and The Complexity of Leadership inNyamaropa Irrigation Scheme', (Paper Presented to The ZimwesiWorkshop, Extension Intervention and Local Strategies in ResourceManagementŠNew Perspectives on Agricultural Innovation in Zimbabwe(Harare, University of Zimbabwe).MANZUNGU, E. (1995) Techno-efficiencies Versus Social Needs: TechnicalLegitimation of Block Irrigation and its Irreconcilability with Needs ofSmallholders (Mimeo).MOYO, S. (1986) 'The Land Question', in Mandaza, I. (ed.), Zimbabwe: ThePolitical Economy of Transition 1980-1986 (Harare, Codesria BookSeries).REYNOLDS, N. (1969) 'A Socio-economic Study of an African DevelopmentScheme' (Cape Town, Cape Town University, Phd thesis).RODER, W. (1965) The Sabi Valley Irrigation Projects (Chicago, Universityof Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 99).WEINRICH, A. K. H. (1971) Chiefs and Councils in Rhodesia (London,Heinemann).