Marginal communities and livelihoods: San communities’ failed transition to a modern economy in Tsholotsho, Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

The San community in Zimbabwe is one of the indigenous tribes that have had a rather belated encounter with modernisation and globalisation. Their transition from a hunting and gathering economy to an agro-capitalist economy is widely considered as failed. Using the sustainable rural livelihoods framework, the study ethnographically investigates the performance of San livelihood portfolios. The main objective of the study was to interrogate the factors that prevent San communities from climbing up the social ladder to gain equal access to resources when compared with their Bantu neighbours. The study found out that some of the key drivers of the failed San communities’ transition include their location close to wild animals, systematic structural oppression by the Ndebele and Kalanga ethnic groups, and the natural environmental challenges such as climate change. We recommend that programming for San communities should take into cognisance these structural and contextual issues.

KEYWORDS:

• Bushmen
• livelihoods
• globalisation
• poverty
• modernisation

1. Introduction

The San community in Zimbabwe is one of the indigenous tribes that has had a rather belated encounter with modernisation and globalisation. As a result, the San people are amongst the poorest and most marginalised people in Zimbabwe and in Southern Africa (IWGIA, 2001; Sylvain, 2002). Available statistics indicate that on average, a Tshwa (San) household earns an income of less than $5 USD per month. The reported household incomes by the San people, according to the 2012 census, is extremely low compared to the average household income of $107 for other ethnic groups in the province (Hitchcock et al., 2014). A major barrier to the economic and social progress of the San is the lack of recognition by policy makers of the San communities as legitimate stakeholders in politics and public administration (Colchester, 2003). There is a general view that the San are too primitive for modern society (Corpuz, 2005). This general perception assumes that the San communities are not interested in modernity and associated aspects such as agriculture, education and financial success.

Indigenous hunter-gatherer societies in Southern Africa tend to occupy low status positions in their communities. This observation has also been made about other marginalised communities like the Inuit in Northen Quebec, Canada and the Adivasi people in India (Fraser et al., 2018; Kannabiran et al., 2018). Poverty amongst indigenous populations including the San communities has been attributed to a failed transition from a hunting and gathering based livelihoods system to a market-based livelihoods system (Hitchcock et al., 2014). However, as Holmsen (2006:17) has indicated ‘Thick ethnographic description of situations in which market capitalism enters into and transforms those groups which still primarily engage in a hunting and gathering mode of production are scarce … ’ leading to a limited understanding of the dynamics in the transition of San communities into the modern economy.

In a study conducted over twenty years ago, Madzudzo & Dzingirai (1995) noted that the San took a second-class position with regards to the Kalanga and the Ndebele ethnic neighbours in Bulilimamagwe, Zimbabwe. The San were identified as providers of labour for Kalanga and Ndebele households. They pointed out that ‘the San have continued to be preoccupied with securing the basic means of survival, that is food and nothing more’ (Madzudzo & Dzingirai, 1995:35). Poverty levels among the San communities have also been aggravated by discrimination and prejudice by larger dominant ethnic groups like the Ndebele and the Kalanga. Discrimination resulting from socially constructed perceptions of the San’s inferior status by neighbouring ethnic communities has led to the social exclusion of the San from socio-economic opportunities (Zhou, 2014). Unfortunately, the San people, as Murphree (1988) argues, lack the emancipative political voice against these injustices, hence the tendency to adopt the ‘attitude of silence’ or conscious non-participation that aggravate poverty, exclusion and deprivation (see also Zhou, 2014; Pradhan & Roy, 2006).

2. Marginal communities and marginal livelihoods

In a study of the Kalahari San, Solway & Lee (1990) noted that there were several San homesteads that were on the edges of local villages. The population of the San people living in those homes increased and decreased seasonally. They added that ‘The spatial marginality neatly reflects the San’s social marginality and positioning somewhere between village and Bush’ (Solway & Lee, 1990:114). Other studies have shown that where the San are found; in former white South African farms, they tend to be active only in marginal places and they survive on practicing traditional medicine and curing people suffering from poverty-related ailments (Sylvain, 2002). A study in South Africa by Sylvain (2004) found out that the San in the Omaheke area existed at the bottom of the social ladder even though they were third and fourth generation labourers on white farms (also see Sylvain, 2002). Barnard (2004:21) has argued that ‘it is best to see “Bushmen” not as a collectivity of related ethnic groups, but rather as an underclass subjugated for centuries by agro-pastoralists’. These sentiments have also been echoed in other studies by Thondhlana et al. (2012) (Northern Cape, South Africa) and Madzudzo & Dzingirai’s (1995) in Bulilimamange, Zimbabwe.

Prior to the introduction of colonialism and capitalism, San communities in Southern Africa led nomadic lifestyles with hunting and gathering underpinning their livelihoods (Madzudzo, 1997). However, the advent of colonialism and the setting up of national parks and game reserves forced San communities into a sedentary lifestyle as hunting became illegalised (Hitchcock, 2001; Bolaane, 2004). Besides disenfranchising the San people of their livelihoods, new land policies also had other challenges. Communities whose livelihoods depended on hunting and gathering have often had to be in conflict with the institutions that are charged with overseeing these protected areas, and thus leading to an aggravation of their poverty and lack of political influence (Robins 2001; Robins et al., 2001; Anthony, 2007; Montefrio, 2012; Huebschle, 2017).

As Sylvain (2004) notes, in Namibia, as is the case with other Southern African, countries, the San Communities have been exposed to the impact of free markets, globalisation, tourism and the NGO industry work. This sudden exposure without preliminary preparations has made the San to be susceptible to the vicissitudes of capitalism, leading to a failed transition into the new economic system. Some researchers have argued that the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to modern economies is a complicated process that requires fundamental socio-cultural changes (Maggs & Whitelaw, 1991). For example, such communities need to evolve to an ideology that conserves and manages livestock in the long term, institute the issue of private poverty and the exclusion of other parties in the production system. All these were non-institutionalised ways of thinking in the traditional San communities (Maggs & Whitelaw, 1991).

The Fourth World Movement has risen as a movement that advocates for the rights of marginalised indigenous peoples in the world (Manuel & Schabus, 2005). This movement of indigenous peoples in the Fourth World Movement addresses issues of marginalisation and poverty amongst the indigenous peoples of the world. According to the Fourth World Movement, indigenous peoples, including the San, are victims of their ‘non-indigenous’ neighbours who take advantage of their poverty to systematically exploit them. Researchers like Solway & Lee (1990) adhere to this view.

3. Theoretical perspective

This study utilised the sustainable rural livelihoods framework for analysis as a heuristic framework (Scoones, 1998). The theory argues that every sustainable livelihoods system is supported by five critical components, namely, context, livelihood resources, livelihood strategies, outcomes and institutional process. Each of these aspects must be carefully examined and measured to determine the sustainability of a livelihood system. According to the sustainable rural livelihoods framework,

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base (Scoones, 1998:3).

4. The study population and area

The San, also known as the Bushmen, are thought to be the oldest residents of Africa who have resided in Southern Africa for more than 20 000 years. In Zimbabwe, the San self-identify as the true indigenous people of the country ahead of other groups (IWGIA, 2001). Today, the San people are found in seven southern African countries; namely, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Angola, South Africa and Zimbabwe, with an estimated population of 113 000. Table 1 shows the population distribution in Southern Africa.

Table 1. Estimated San population in Southern Africa by country.

Country	Population estimate
Angola	1200
Botswana	47 675
Namibia	32 000
South Africa	4350
Zambia	300
Zimbabwe	2500

Source: Suzman (2001).

In Zimbabwe, the San are mostly found in parts of Tsholotsho district in Matabeleland North, and in parts of Bulilima district in Matabeleland South (Madzudzo, 2001; Hitchcock et al., 2014). As Table 1 shows, the San in Zimbabwe are estimated to be around 2500. There are more San people in Tsholotsho than in Bulilima district (Hitchcock et al., 2014). The San were moved to their current location in Tsholotsho, away from the Hwange National Park, during the colonial era when it was designated a wild-life area under the Game and Fish Preservation Act of 1929 (Madzudzo, 2001; Rankomise, 2015). Their proximity to the Hwange National Game Park, in the extreme southern and western parts of Tsholotsho district, is therefore strategic for hunting-based livelihoods opportunities (Hitchcock, 1999). They live in the outlying parts of the District, towards the national game park, alongside the Ndebele and Kalanga ethnic communities (Zhou, 2014; Madzudzo, 2001).

The San community in Zimbabwe identifies itself as the Tshwa (meaning a person). This name Tshwa also depicts the language spoken by the San (Hitchcock et al., 2014). The San people of Zimbabwe are also known as ‘Abathwa’ or ‘Amasili’ in the local Ndebele language and as ‘Bakhwa’ in the local Kalanga language. The latter groups are themselves referred to by the San people as ‘Abesintwini’ (loosely translated of Bantu origin).

5. Research questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the main livelihood portfolios pursued by San communities in Tsholotsho District?

2. How well do these San livelihood portfolios compare with other neighbouring communities in terms of performance and poverty reduction?

3. What factors drive the relatively poor performance of San livelihood portfolios?

6. Methodology

The study employed a two-pronged methodological approach that combined an ethnographic approach and a mixed method design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. The mixed methodology employed three major data collection instruments; namely the questionnaire, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The study employed a stratified systematic random sampling technique. The online Raosoft sample size calculator was used to calculate the sample size for the survey questionnaire. With a sampling frame of 1000 households in the study area, a sample of 200 households gave a confidence level of 94% and a margin of error of 6%, which were all deemed to be within an acceptable range. Therefore, a total of 200 questionnaires were distributed to households in five (5) wards where San communities are predominantly found to co-exist with the Ndebele and the Kalanga people. Although San community households were proportionally less than 10% in size when compared to their Kalanga and Ndebele neighbouring tribes, a 25% distribution target was deliberately eschewed towards San households in order to reach enough households for statistical generalisation. It is estimated that there are about 2500 San people in Zimbabwe dotted around the Western borders of Zimbabwe (Suzman, 2001). The exact number of San people in Tsholotsho remains unknown because they are mostly undocumented. Key informant in-depth interviews were also used to collect primary data from targeted stakeholders within Tsholotsho District. The key informants, which were purposively sampled included the San traditional leadership, selected Ward Councillors, District Education Officials, local clinic officials, Environmental Health Technicians, AGRITEX Officers, officials from Child Protection Agencies and the Registrar’s Department in the District. A total of twenty (20) Focus Group Discussions were also conducted in five wards, namely Wards 1, 7, 8, 10 and 11, where the San households are predominately found.

The ethnographic immersion component of the study was necessity by the realisation that most studies that have investigated the San people have done so with an outsider’s perspective, often leading to a misinterpretation of their lives and worldview. A team of five researchers were immersed in the San community to live with them and experience their lives for several days. Each of the researchers was allocated a San household where they lived for over a week experiencing and learning about their lives particularly with regards to the key indicators of the programme. The researchers collected data through a combination of interviews and observation techniques. The selected households were identified during the mixed methodology phase of the study. The ethnographic immersion was therefore, undertaken as a second and final phase of the entire study.

7. Livelihoods of the San communities in Tsholotsho: the research findings

7.1. Livelihoods portfolios

The San people in Tsholotsho have a variety of livelihood portfolios at their disposal. However, in spite of the variety of livelihood portfolios pursued in the District by the San Community, poverty levels are disproportionately higher amongst the San people than amongst other neighbouring tribes. The main livelihood activities for San communities include own farm activities, casual non-farm labour, petty-trade, remittances, casual farm labour and foraging.

7.1.1. Farming

Most San households practice subsistence farming. They mostly grow maize, sorghum and millet. However, although farming was the predominant livelihood activity, San communities faced several obstacles in practicing agriculture. The general observation was that the San people were less successful farmers when compared to their Kalanga and Ndebele counterparts in the area. This issue was acknowledged by all stakeholders including the Agriculture and Extension Services (AGRITEX) Department. There were several major drawbacks to the agricultural practise of the San people. Firstly, they were faced with the challenge of draught power. Most San households did not possess any form of livestock at all. Livestock ownership amongst the San was very rare. Consequently, they had small fields which they ploughed manually due to lack of draught power. Table 2 compares livestock ownership levels between San communities and their neighbouring Bantu neighbours, the Ndebele and the Kalanga.

Table 2. Comparative livestock ownership amongst the San and other ethnic groups.

Ethnic Group	Livestock Owned
	Goats	Sheep	Cattle	Donkeys	Pigs	Chickens	Total
Tshwa (San)	189 (N = 50)	0 (N = 29)	67 (N = 42)	22 (N = 38)	0 (N = 29)	287 (N = 50)	565
Ndebele	370 (N = 72)	0 (N = 37)	249 (N = 66)	120 (N = 53)	2 (N = 38)	621 (N = 68)	1362
Kalanga	168 (N = 35)	18 (N = 28)	96 (N = 34)	52 (N = 30)	0 (N = 24)	322 (N = 39)	656
Total	727	18	412	194	2	1230	2583
p = 0.00000 H0: There is no association between tribe and livestock numbers H1: There is association between tribe and livestock numbers Conclusion: The p value is less than 0.05. Therefore we reject H0 and conclude that there is association between ethnic group and livestock numbers.

Source: Survey Data (2016).

In order to compensate for the lake of draught power, most San households often entered into partnerships with their more affluent neighbours who had farming equipment. The partnerships worked in such a way that the resourced neighbours ploughed the fields of the San who in turn would be required to herd the cattle of their ploughing partner for the rest of the ploughing season. In some cases, the San men would carry out work such as clearing the field of their ploughing partners during the pre-planting season (commonly called ukutshaya inenje in Ndebele) or fencing their partner’s fields. This arrangement meant that the San people had less time on their fields during the agricultural season. It also meant that the San would not harvest much even in a good rainy season (Tsholotsho District AGRITEX Officer Interview, 2016).

Most San communities in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) indicated that a more sustainable and permanent solution to their farming problems would be for them to be assisted with agricultural implements including draught power. It was particularly noted that if the communities could be supplied with donkeys for ploughing and seeds as well as farming equipment such as ox drawn ploughs, this could vastly improve their agricultural production. The general view of the San Community was that they wanted to be empowered so that they could catch up with their established farming neighbours (the Ndebele and the Kalanga). As one San elder (Mr Dube) explained:

We gladly receive all the aid that comes to us, however, the aid is not helping us much to develop. We are still the same. If we are to be really helped, we must be given donkeys. We can even share these donkeys in twos. If we manage to plant, this could create a big difference, we will not need to be always persuading these friends that we are complaining about (The Ndebele and the Kalanga). (Interview with Mr Dube – San Community Elder, 2016)

Wild animals, (elephants, in particular) posed a major livelihoods threat to San communities in the marginal wards of Tsholotsho that bordered the Hwange National Park. Respondents in FGDs noted that elephants would invade just before the harvest and feed on their crops. In cases where villagers had water melons stored at home, the elephants would also track the scent of water melons to the homesteads. Because of the challenges that these communities faced, some households had resorted to planting in their backyard instead of using fields distant from home. This meant that the size of the planted land area was reduced, which subsequently affected the size of the harvest (Table 3).

Table 3. Small-grain harvest by household ethnic group.

Ethnic Group	Millet (kgs harvested)	Sorghum (kgs harvested)	Total
Tshwa (San)	4011 (N = 49)	2400 (N = 31)	6411
Ndebele	9928 (N = 75)	2520 (N = 26)	12 448
Kalanga	8300 (N = 38)	803 (N = 14)	9103
Total	22 239	5723	27 962
p = 0.00000 H0: There is no association between ethnic group and total yield of small grains H1: There is association between ethnic group and total yield of small grain Conclusion: The p value is less than 0.05. Therefore we reject H0 and conclude that there is association between ethnic group and total yield of small grains.

Source: Survey Data (2016).

The genesis of the subordinate position of the San people in agricultural production is that when the old life style of the San was altered by land tenure legislation and other dynamics, they were not assisted to make a transition from the nomadic life of hunting and gathering to sedentary lifestyles (Interview with Mr Dube, Tsorotso San Development Trust). The San made this radical transition without any comprehensive agricultural empowerment programmes to equip them for the transition (Gariya 1 Village Focus Group Discussion with men).

7.1.2. Casual labour

San community members often took up casual jobs mostly amongst their Ndebele and Kalanga neighbours. Most of these casual jobs were remunerated in food and money. A common problem raised by most San respondents about this livelihood pathway was that they felt exploited by the Ndebele and Kalanga employers. San respondents pointed out that they were often underpaid for their services. In the FGD at Mtshina 2, it was pointed out that payment often came in the form of sugar, soap, or a tin of sorghum or maize. Basic work such as the construction of stalls to store grain harvests were done for a price of between five dollars (USD $5 and $10 USD). The money earned through this casual work was mostly spent on paying for the grinding of grain at the local grinding mill.

The nature of casual labour services offered at any point in time was largely dependent on the season of the year. Common types of work included clearing and preparing fields for planting (ukutshaya inenje), fencing fields and homes, cleaning, laundry, pounding grain (ukugiga), herding cattle and donkeys as well as clearing the fields. These were dominant during the time of research in September and October. Other jobs done during other seasons included herding cattle, weeding and winnowing. Driven by extreme poverty and desperation, San communities had limited bargaining power to negotiate their wages. It was widely reported that in some instances, they would work and only get to know what their wages were after the job was completed.

The dependence of San communities on casual labour as a means to earn livelihood had negative repercussions for the development of the San communities in general. In particular, it was noted that the over-reliance on casual labour had resulted in the San people perennially failing to tend their own fields. This subsequently resulted in chronic food shortages in their homes. As the AGRITEX District Officer indicated in an interview:

… the San people are hard workers. However, their hard work is not directed in their own fields. They tend to expend their labour on casual labour employment. This keeps them within the poverty trap as they are not producing for themselves but for the Ndebele and the Kalanga who pay them paltry wages.

Cross border migration to Botswana was also identified as a major livelihood option for many San people living in Tsholotsho District. The economically active men from San households would visit Botswana for casual labour. Those that travelled to Botswana and Plumtree in most cases worked as herd-boys and household assistants. These youths occasionally sent some groceries back home. However, it was reported that because they earned paltry wages they were able to send these groceries after a very long period of time. Those who worked as herd-boys often earned approximately R400 per month ($26 USD). It was noted that most youthful San people preferred this method because it enabled them to access some cash. When employed locally by the Ndebele and the Kalanga, to keep their cattle they were paid using old clothes, millet, sorghum or maize to feed their families. Lack of financial liquidity meant that they could not pay for services at schools and clinics for example.

7.1.3. Food aid

Because of the high poverty levels in the San communities, food aid perennially constituted an important livelihood pathway in these communities. Most vulnerable segments of the population received food aid assistance from both state and non-state actors. Most people who were receiving food aid were lactating mothers and the HIV positive patients who were registered. Most food aid came from the Department of Social Welfare and from Plan International Zimbabwe. It was reported that the Social Welfare was giving 50kgs of maize per registered individual regardless of the size of the family. This food was received through a food-for-work scheme. Communities worked on the road in return for food aid. Those registered under the Plan International scheme received cooking oil and beans together with 50 kgs maize or sorghum. However, the Plan International beneficiaries were not required to work for their food aid hand-outs.

However, some respondents indicated that food aid was worsening the poverty gap between the San and other tribes (the Ndebele and the Kalanga). It was argued that the ‘deserving’ poor and old San people are left out in distributions despite efforts to get registered for the food aid while on the other hand undeserving well-to-do Ndebele and Kalanga people were being registered for food aid after lying about their assets and sources of livelihood to registering organisations. The food that the Ndebele and Kalanga were receiving from food aid was then used to pay the San for their casual labour. Therefore, food aid had, instead of reducing the gap between the poor and the rich, in fact widened the gap.

Even if we get a bag of maize from the Social welfare, we do not have the dollar to pay for the transport fare. If we do not have the dollar, we do not get any help. If I happen to get a bag, I will not be able to carry it on my back. Therefore, the Ndebele carry it for me (with their transport) and they demand payment. I am again forced to then give them a bucket of maize and then am left with a bucket and a half. When I get home I have to pay my debt with say another bucket. (Thabisa Village Female FGD, 2016)

There were reports in the FGDs that some individuals had participated in the food for work projects only to be disadvantaged by failing to get their food rations due to the inability to contribute transport money.

7.1.4. Hunting

Participants in FGDs and in-depth interviews observed that the traditional way of living for the San people relied heavily on hunting and gathering. The struggle to transition into the new way of life that is agricultural based derived from the fact that growing crops and rearing animals were quite foreign to them. Changes in the legislative framework around the management of natural resources, and national parks in particular had severely affected their way of life. San community respondents pointed out that they could no longer hunt because of the laws of the country. When asked about hunting in a Sithembile Village Men’s Focus Group Discussion, one respondent pointed out that this was prohibited by the law:

… In this place you must never even attempt to hunt. The Park Rangers will beat your legs severely. When they beat your legs they will be saying we want to paralyse the transport that takes you to go and hunt. You can really get injured from this beating.

The general discourse was that San communities found themselves in a difficult period of transition from their traditional nomadic hunting and gathering livelihood to settled agricultural livelihood. San elders lamented the destruction of their old livelihoods system. These respondents were quite nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ that guaranteed them dignified and independent living and self-determination free from exploitation. However, their forced integration into the agricultural and monetary economy had placed them at a disadvantage causing them to work for other ethnic groups.

7.1.5. Grass cutting and selling

Grass cutting and selling was another common livelihood pathway especially employed by San women in Tsholotsho District. During the dry season, most women would go and cut grass emlageni (grazing lands) and sell it to local Ndebele and Kalanga people. However, this was said to be a very laborious and low-returns activity. It was noted that there were limited benefits derived from grass cutting. It cost a woman five bundles of grass for transport to travel to emlageni (the place where grass was cut), five bundles from emlageni then 30 bundles to transport their load of 60 bundles. One bundle would cost R20. This was not much considering the effort in the exercise. Because grass was an important source of cash, some San households were not thatching their houses but preferring to sell the grass for cash instead.

7.1.6. Harvesting and selling Mopane worms

Of the livelihoods derived from ecosystem services, the harvesting of amacimbi (Mopane worm) was an important seasonal livelihood strategy for the San communities. FGD participants particularly from Mtshina village pointed out that December was the month for mopane worm harvesting. This worm is a delicacy eaten in Matabeleland and other parts of the country. The worm grows on mopane trees during the wet season. This delicacy was sold to people who came from as far as the capital city (Harare) for USD $40 a bucket. However, buyers were reportedly taking advantage of the distance of this location to manipulate prices by bringing in goods for barter in exchange for mopane worms. The traders brought maize meal, clothes, cigarettes and liquor for exchange with mopane worms.

8. Other factors undermining San community livelihoods

8.1. Human–wildlife conflict

Wild animals were widely cited as a major factor undermining the success of San community livelihood portfolios. Participants in the focus group discussions explained that animals were responsible for destroying their crops and thus leading to perpetual food insecurity. It was indicated that after many years of interfacing with human beings these animals were no longer afraid of traditional methods used to scare them. During an FGD with men (Sanqinyane village) it was noted that;

… These elephants have been corrupted. They have studied and understood the ways of human beings. They can even extinguish your fire if you light fire. They are difficult to control. They even have a way of jumping over the poles that the game Rangers had recommended as security. They are also no longer scared of ‘drum beating’ as they confront you with your drums. (Sanginyane Male Focus Group Discussion, 2016)

Wild animals from the Hwange National Park were thus a major poverty enhancer for marginal communities living next to the park. During FGD with women in Sakhile villagers complained that the problem with these wild animals was ignored by relevant authorities;

We also need to be protected from harmful animals like elephants, hyenas since CAMPFIRE doesn’t take action towards protecting us and our crops from these animals; they only come to arrest us when we kill the animals. (Sakhile Female FGD)

8.2. Poor farming techniques and improper seed varieties

Keeping seeds for the next farming season was found to be generally a challenge amongst mostly poor households in the study area. It was noted that due to the shortage of food, most villagers ate their seeds especially groundnuts before the planting season. They stated that they could not die of hunger when they have ‘food’ meant for planting. This means that by the time they have to plant they would no longer be having seeds. They would then have to go and work for the Ndebele and the Kalanga to get seeds of poorer quality:

We always keep seeds for the next planting season. However, around the month of October, hunger intensifies and we have to eat our seeds. The challenge is that organizations that provide food aid like Plan withdraw around October from providing aid, if only they could push us up to February / March. These organizations should plan with us and not for us. If food aid patterns change, this could break the food insecurity chain. (Gariya Male FGD, 2016)

8.3. Poor market linkages

The general poverty of the San communities and other local communities was partly driven by the marginal location and remoteness of the area leading to broken market linkages. Participants in FGDs bemoaned the fact that linkages with the market were weak due to the distance from Tsholotsho and Bulawayo which were the closest major commercial centres. Weak market linkages meant that villagers were deprived of the opportunity to sell their produce at competitive prices:

We don’t have a market for our products; this place is very far from the people that can buy our products. As a result at times we sell our products very cheaply – We sell goats at a giveaway price of $30 because we will be desperate (The commercial price for a goat is $50). This price is very low you don't gain anything. Sometimes it’s better not to sell at all. (Sanqinyane Male FGD, 2016)

We sell chickens at the price of $2 each instead of $5. (Sakhile Female FGD, 2016)

8.4. Climate change

Climate change was broadly acknowledged by all farmers in the wards that were surveyed. Farmers noted that temperatures had been increasing over the years and that precipitation was dwindling. These climatic changes were cited as part of the reasons leading to a reduction in harvests. As one Gariya Village Focus Group Discussion Participant noted;

Yes, I have noticed climate changes there are less rains now and high temperatures. Even the rituals that we used to do for the rains are now of no use. The last three years have been miserable, we didn’t receive any rains and as a result our dam is empty. The Gariya dam is now completely dry. In the past this dam never used to dry up. We would get to the next season with lots of water.

Farmers pointed out that they were having challenges farming under the changing climatic patterns. They indicated that they needed a closer interaction with AGRITEX to help them adapt to the changing climate as they were uncertain about the correct ways to adapt. However, the main concern was that there were not enough AGRITEX officers covering the whole district. This made it difficult for farmers to have any meaningful and productive contact with the AGRITEX officers.

9. Discussion of findings

The study findings show that much of the dynamics of San livelihoods fits well into the sustainable rural livelihoods framework as depicted by Scoones (1998). The findings have demonstrated that the San livelihoods unfold under certain contexts, conditions and trends as articulated by the sustainable rural livelihoods framework (SRLF). In particular, the key issues under this category of Scoones framework relate to the legislative developments that expropriated traditional lands used by the San by making them national parks, and simultaneously criminalising hunting which was a key San livelihoods pathway. Another key contextual issue mediating the development of San livelihoods is climate change as indicated in the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework. The study brings to the fore the fact that these contextual factors have worked in connivance to deny San communities access to what the SRLF calls livelihood resources, particularly financial and natural capital. Weak institutional, process and organisation structures have not managed to galvanise the energy and support required to amass the critical mass of resources to energise San livelihoods in a constantly modernising economy. As, depicted by the SRLF, the success of livelihoods strategies largely depend on the functionality of the foregoing factors.

While SRLF helps to explain the causes of poorly performing livelihoods portfolios amongst the San communities, the framework fails to explain the difference of performance between the San communities and the neighbouring Bantu communities (Ndebele and Kalanga) who same essentially the same contexts with the San in terms of the legislative environment, geographic location and climate.

We, therefore, argue that the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to modern economies is a complicated process that requires fundamental socio-cultural changes beyond what the SRLF can explain. These communities need to evolve to an ideology that conserves and manages livestock in the long term, institute the issue of private poverty and the exclusion of other parties in the production system. Similar arguments have been raised by Maggs & Whitelaw (1991).

We also argue that the findings of this study show that the San are victims of their Bantu neighbours who adopt a systematic process of economic subjugation to promote their own interests. The failed transition of San communities should therefore be viewed not as intrinsically a San community problem but rather as the success of a systematic process of subjugation and modern day slavery perpetrated by their Bantu neighbours.

10. Conclusion

This paper has examined the failed transition of San communities from the traditional hunting and gathering based economy to the modern agro-based capital economy. The paper established that San communities continue to struggle in transitioning from the hunting and gathering economy. It established that San households in Tsholotsho District remain at the bottom of the ladder of economic progress when compared to their neighbouring ethnic groups, the Ndebele and the Kalanga. Statistical analyses show that there is a strong association between ethic groups and the ownership of resources and agricultural production. Using a sustainable rural livelihoods framework, the study established that in all livelihood portfolios, San communities are the least productive when compared to their Bantu neighbours, the Kalanga and the Ndebele. A comparison of agricultural production and livestock ownership patterns shows that San anchor the base of economic productivity, as being the least productive. Using the sustainable livelihoods approach, the study established that there is an intersection of various causes leading this failed transition. The marginal physical location of the San communities interfaces them with wild animals that are a major driver of poverty as they consume their crops. This physical marginal location of San communities also ensures that their products do not sell for any significant prices as market competition is limited by access to larger markets such as Bulawayo and Tsholotsho Centre. The study also established that the systematic manipulation of the communal economy by local Bantu neighbours leads to a continued subjugation of San communities as they are structurally subdued to provide cheap labour. This study further established that the transition of San communities into the modern economy is severely hindered by climate change. Tsholotsho is located in a semi-arid region of Zimbabwe which makes agriculture difficult even for the experienced Bantu people. However, we conclude that the SRLF alone is unable to explain the lag of development amongst the San communities because much of the issues raised by the SRLF are shared by the San and their Bantu neighbours. We argue that there is a need to look into socio-cultural factors and an emerging perception about the deliberate slavery practices perpetuated by neighbouring Bantu communities (the Ndebele and the Kalanga). The study recommends systematic programming both by the state and non-state actors to target the specific issues that have been discussed in this paper that continue to keep San communities in a state of subordination both to the vagaries of nature and to their Bantu neighbours.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).