Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis uses dairy farming in colonial Zimbabwe/Southern Rhodesia as a lens to explore the intersection of economic, social and environmental factors in colonial agriculture from the 1890s until 1951, when a new regulatory framework was introduced for the industry. It examines the complex and fluid interactions between the colonial state and farmers (both white and black), and the manner in which these interactions shaped and reshaped policy within the context of the local political economy and the changing global economic conditions. It examines the competing interests of the colonial state and farmers, and how these tensions played out in the formulation and implementation of dairy development policy over time. This thesis demonstrates that these contestations profoundly affected the trajectory of an industry that started as a mere side-line to the beef industry until it had become a central industry in Southern Rhodesia’s agricultural economy by the late 1940s. Thus, besides filling a historiographical gap in existing studies of Southern Rhodesia’s agricultural economy, the thesis engages in broader historiographical conversations about settler colonial agricultural policy and the role of the state and farmers in commercial agriculture. Given the fractured nature of colonial administration in Southern Rhodesia, this study also discusses conflicts among government officials. It demonstrates how these differences affected policy formulation and implementation, especially regarding African commercial dairy production. This thesis also explores the impact of a segregationist agricultural policy, particularly focusing on prejudices about the “African body” and hygiene. It shows how this shaped the character of both African and white production trends. It demonstrates that Africans were unevenly affected by settler policy, as some indigenous people continued to compete with white farmers at a time when existing regulations were intended to exclude them from the colonial dairy industry. It argues that although dairy farming had grown to be a strong white-dominated industry by 1951, the history of dairy farming during the period under review was characterised by contestations between the state and both white and African farmers. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis gebruik suiwelboerdery in koloniale Zimbabwe/Suid-Rhodesie as ’n lens om die ekonomiese, sosiale en omgewingsgerigte kruispunte in koloniale landbou van omstreeks 1890 t 1951 toe ‘n nuwe regulatoriese raamwerk vir suiwelboerdery ingestel is te, ondersoek. Die komplekse en vloeibare interaksies tussen die koloniale staat en boere (wit sowel as swart) en die wyse waarop hierdie interaksies beleid binne die konteks van die plaaslike politieke ekonomie en die globale ekonomiese omstandighede gevorm en hervorm het, word ondersoek. Hierbenewens word gelet op die spanninge tussen die belange van die koloniale staat en die boere (wit sowel as swart) en hoe hierdie spanning oor tyd in die formulering en implementering van suiwelbeleid gemanifested het. Hierdie tesis demonstreer dat di spanninge en stryd ’n diepgaande uitwerking gehad het op ’n bedryf wat aanvanklik as ondergeskik tot die vleisbedryf begin het, naar teen die leat as ‘n sentrale veertigerjere bedryf in die Rhodesiëse landelike ekonomie uitgekristalliseer het. Benewens die feit dat die proefakrif ’n historiografiese leemte in bestaande koloniale Zimbabwe aangespreek, vorm dit ook deel van ’n breër historiografiese diskoers ten opsigte van setlaar koloniale landbou in Zimbabwe en die rol van die staat en boere in kommersiële landbou. Vanweё die gefragmenteerde aard van koloniale administrasie in Suid-Rhodesië, fokus die tesis ook op die konflikte tussen regeringsamptenare en hoe hierdie geskille veral beleidsformulering en implementering ten opsigte van swart kommersiële suiwelboerdery beïnvloed het. Vervolgens word die uitwerking van ’n landboubeleid geliasear of segragasi onder die loep geneem met spesiale verwysing na die geskiktheid van swartmense vir kommersiële suiwelboerdery en hoe dit die aard en karakter van beide swart sowel as wit produksie tendense beïnvloed het. Daar word aangedui dat swartmense nie eenvormig deur setlaarsbeleid geraak is nie aangesien van hulle met wit boere meegeding het op ’n stadium toe die heersende regulasies daerop gemik was oin baie van hulle uit die koloniale suiwelbedryfwit te slint. Die sentrale argument is dat hoewel suiwelboerdery sterk wit gedomineerd was teen 1951, die geskiedenis van die bedryf gedurende die tydperk onder bespreking gekenmerk is deur stryd en konflite tussen die staat en wit sowel as swart boere.

PhDRDV / Institute for Rural Development / As has been the case in Eastern and Southern Africa, Zimbabwe continues to regard smallholder dairy farming as a viable strategy for reducing poverty and malnutrition, especially in rural areas. Although the country has since the early 1980s been promoting smallholder dairy development, available literature does not provide a clear picture of the extent to which the specific livelihoods of rural communities in terms of human, social, physical and financial capitals, have improved. Nor is there knowledge on its negative contribution to the farmers’ livelihoods. Thus, this study was undertaken to critically analyse the contribution of smallholder dairy farming towards the livelihoods of rural households using the Nharira dairy scheme as a focal area. The DfiD sustainable livelihood framework was used to build this understanding. Apart from characterizing the farmers, the contribution of smallholder dairy farming towards social, physical, human, natural and financial capitals was investigated. A sequentially integrated mixed methods approach was used. This was divided into two phases, which were quantitative and qualitative in nature. Results from the first phase were used to inform and design the second study. A census of the 21 active smallholder dairy farmers in Nharira, and management committee of the Nharira dairy processing plant was conducted. A household-focused questionnaire, key informant interviews, participatory mapping, record review, Global Positioning System (GPS) locating and focus group discussions were used to collect data. A tape recorder, GPS locator and camera were used as assistive devices during data collection. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data and interpret participatory maps. Livelihood capital indices were derived per household and used to complement descriptive statistics as part of quantitative data analysis. A social capital index was computed for each household using collective action, empowerment, groups and networks, and trust and solidarity as its components. Resource stocks and access were the building blocks of the natural capital index. Income, savings and investments, and access to funding were used to derive the household financial capital index. Contribution of dairy farming to productive equipment (such as cattle herd size) and basic infrastructure (such as quality of housing) were used to calculate the physical capital index. The index for human capital was obtained taking into account education, workforce and employment, enabling environment, and health and wellness. Equal weights were applied to the components when deriving the household livelihood indices because each one of them was considered to be substantially important for sustainable livelihoods. The quantitative data were stored and analysed using the International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical iii Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24. Pearson correlation coefficients, means and standard deviations were calculated. Most of the farmers (65 %) were female. Approximately, 95 % of the women farmers were literate. Only 1 % of the farmers were youth (< 35 years old), a situation that threatened the sustainability of smallholder dairy farming. A daily smallholder dairy farming routine was derived using the focus group and participatory mapping results. This showcased the various daily activities and linked them with the household members actively involved. Smallholder dairy farming was found to be labour intensive. This might deter the farmers from diversifying into other livelihood strategies. Smallholder dairy farming was observed to have strengthened financial, human, natural, physical and social capitals in the local households. However, the respective indices of 0.59 and 0.52 for social and natural capitals, suggested that smallholder dairy farming impacted on these more than any other. Even though social capital was strong, further reinforcement through improved smallholder dairy farming activities was still vital because of its power of enhancing access to other forms of livelihood capitals. Human and physical capitals had the least index scores of 0.48 and 0.47, respectively. On average, the overall household livelihood capital index as a result of smallholder dairy farming was 0.51. One of the study respondents supported the positive contribution in the following way, ‘’Zvakanakira dairy hatingazipedzi. Tinotoda zuva rese” (There are many positive things that we attribute to our involvement in smallholder dairy farming. Narrating these demands considerable time). It was concluded that smallholder dairy farming significantly strengthened livelihood capitals of households involved in it. The results of the current study suggest that smallholder dairy farming is a viable option for improving household livelihood capitals. Thus, establishment of dairy farming schemes in rural areas should be promoted. However, the participation of youth in smallholder dairy farming as enterprise owners deserves attention because it threatens sustainability of the sector. An integrated multiple angle view encompassing technical, social, institutional, economic and organizational ideas of the impact of dairy farming as a livelihood strategy on household capital portfolio was provided. Moreover, application of the sustainable development framework to understanding the smallholder dairy farming context at household level was a novel way of understanding the local realities. Lastly, a set of variables that can be utilised to measure livelihood capitals of households involved in smallholder dairy farming-related activities was distilled.