Walking where men walk : gendered politics of smallholder agriculture in Zimbabwe

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Walking where men walk : gendered politics of smallholder agriculture in Zimbabwe © 2023 by the authors. Licensee UAIC, Iasi, Romania. Published version Tirivangasi, Happy; Dzvimbo, Munyaradzi; Chitongo, Leornard; Mawonde, Albert Tirivangasi, H., Dzvimbo, M., Chitongo, L., & Mawonde, A. (2023). Walking where men walk : gendered politics of smallholder agriculture in Zimbabwe. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2023171003 2023 Present Environment and Sustainable Development Volume 17, number 1, 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2023171003 PESD 2023, 17, 1; doi: DOI: https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2023171003 www.pesd.ro Walking where men walk: gendered politics of smallholder agriculture in Zimbabwe Happy TIRIVANGASI1,2 , Munyaradzi DZVIMBO3, Leornard CHITONGO4, Albert MAWONDE5 1Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Finland 2Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Limpopo, South Africa 3Department of Geography, University of the Free State, South Africa 4School of Management, IT & Governance, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa 5College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa *Correspondence: [email protected] (H.T), +263779345385 Keywords: agriculture; livelihoods; politics; smallholder; women; sustainable development; gender Abstract: Small-holder farmers are the pillars of the rural economy, food security and sustainable livelihoods. As a result of the numerous institutionalized gender inequities that are ingrained in laws, regulations, socio-cultural beliefs, and practices, small-holder agriculture in Zimbabwe continues to be contested and gendered. Exploring lessons from the experiences of women small-holder farmers in fourteen villages in Sanyati District, Zimbabwe, this study examines how the “contours” of gender-political dynamics and relations continue to limit rural women in the mainstream small-holder agricultural sector in Zimbabwe. The study used a mixedmethods research paradigm with which data was collected through purposive sampling techniques, in-depth personal and key informant interviews. The study shows that women farmers in rural communities of Zimbabwe are struggling to control their activities from farmland ownership up to post-harvesting time. Hence, they continue to face discrimination regarding having farmland rights, accessing the markets, financial services, extension services and information. These challenges continue to reveal the existence of an unjust, undemocratic, and unequal space for women in various facets of life at community and household level. Therefore, this calls for the need to spearhead women empowerment and involvement in the agricultural sector. The study further recommends gender mainstreaming within institutions, reforming policies, and laws relevant to small-holder farming and inclusive of women. More so, supporting small-holder farmers is very important in boosting the declining commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe. The study concludes by examining practical approaches in land allocation through gender policy and reforms such as repealing of social practices and customary laws which hinder gender equality. 1. Introduction Empirical research shows that small-holder agriculture contributes significantly to ensuring food security and improving economic livelihoods in Africa (Kamara et al., 2019). However, as explored in this study, small-holder agriculture in Zimbabwe shows little disregard for gender equality and equity. Agricultural systems are made up of smallholder farms (Wiggins and Keats, 2013) of two hectares and below, and these farms constitute 80% of all farms in Sub-Saharan Africa. Small-holder farmers produce 80 percent of food in Sub-Saharan Africa (Kamara et al., 2019) and yield nine-tenths of the food in Africa at large and nearly 50% of all the food globally. However, women make up 60 – 80% of these farmers across the developing world (FAO, 2011b). PESD 2023, 17, 1 34 Furthermore, women also constitute most people who suffer from lack of food. This springs from the gender gap in agriculture in terms of land ownership, extension services, government laws and support, and agricultural policies, access to financial credit and access to markets. However, despite the existing gaps, it is apparent that women are the key players in agriculture because they produce much of the world’s food (Tirivangasi, 2018). Nyamudeza (2012) argues that the undervaluing and sidelining of women’s contribution in agriculture has been due to culture, patriarchal domination, and socialization, which define domestic chores as women’s roles. Therefore, this has led to unequal access to the most significant productive resources, profits, and reluctance to implement policies. While women are the backbone of small-scale agriculture, farm human resource base, and day-to-day family subsistence input, they face more challenges than men in gaining access to land, inputs and services. So, the agricultural sector doesn't do as well as it could because women, who are important to agriculture and the rural economy because they are farmers and workers, have a harder time getting access to productive resources than men (Muzari, 2016; FAO, 2011b). The issue of gendered access to resources in small-holder farming is a contested one in Zimbabwe. Before the landform process in 2000, which saw about 4,500 whiteowned farms handed to black farmers, fewer women in Zimbabwe had land registered in their names (Manjengwa et al., 2014; Goebel, 2005). Currently, 20 percent of women are landholders and leaseholders. It is noteworthy that the resettlement lands are subject to insecurity of tenure because it is provided on a 99-year leasehold which means the land remains the state’s property, raising ownership questions. Women should not only have exclusive land control rights, but they must have the ability to have a say on what happens on the land they own (Ferguson and Moosa, 2011). Ensuring that women have access to own land and control of what happens on the land they own is thus a key to unprecedented benefits in terms of food security, nutrition and poverty eradication (Chigwenya and Ndhlovu, 2016; Action Aid, 2012). By drawing understanding from the experiences of women farmers in fourteen villages of rural Zimbabwe’s in Sanyati District, this research sought to look at the “contours” of gender-political dynamics and relations of small-holder agriculture. The research pays particular focus on the challenges, benefits of promoting women’s selfagency in small-holder agriculture, gaps that exist in small-holder agriculture between women and men farmers and possible intervention strategies that can enhance the reduction of the gender gaps that exist in small-holder agriculture. For agricultural policies, and programmes by the state and non-state entities to enhance productivity for small-holder farmers, agriculture need to redress gender imbalances through close gender analysis and equity as pronounced by the SDG number 5 (gender equality). 2. Theoretical underpinnings To understand the gendered politics of small-holder agriculture in Zimbabwe, the study is based on feminist gender analysis frameworks. There are various definitions and views of feminism from different authors (Hoffman, 2001; Jamir, 2022; Delmar, 2018). These include the definition by individuals, researchers, project managers, nongovernmental organizations which treat feminism as reduced gender equality and promoting interests of women (Walby, 2011). Gelling (2013) defined feminism as a framework which analyses women’s experiences in a naturalist research social setting with the overarching aim to encourage the visibility of them and raise their consciousness and empower them. Delmar (2018) viewed feminism as the discrimination of women because of their sex such that they have specific needs in society which remain negated and unfulfilled. Although they are various definitions and views of feminism from different authors, there is an outstanding theme and commonalities among these researchers. Several researchers converge on the fact that women’s rights and opportunities are often negated due to their gender resulting in them excluded in some societal functions and duties (Nyahunda and Tirivangasi, 2022; Tirivangasi et al., 2021). PESD 2023, 17, 1 35 In the context of this paper, these frameworks give room for a differential analysis of how women compared to men are accessing, owning and controlling land and other resources. Therefore, while women still face several legal, political, economic, social and cultural barriers in relation to land ownership and production (Ravera et al., 2016), feminist gender frameworks allow for in-depth analysis and explanation of relations of production between women and men in different communities. Many studies have documented the gendered impacts of climate change in Zimbabwe (Brown et al., 2012; Chidakwa et al., 2020; Makura et al., 2016; Zamasiya et al., 2017). In a patriarchal society like Zimbabwe, men assume gender roles such as household head, exercising authority, and the ultimate decision power (Garutsa et al., 2018). On the other hand, in addition to their reproductive roles, women are responsible for household food, nutrition income, water, energy (firewood) security (Dodo, 2013; Mudombi and Muchie, 2013). With the majority (70%) of the rural population in Zimbabwe being women (Zimbabwe Statistics, 2012), whose livelihood heavily depends on nature, the gendered impacts of climate change on women are visible (FAO, 2017). Further, climate-related crop failure increases household food provision workload for women, thus, strengthening the existing gender inequalities in the rural agriculture frontier (FAO, 2017; World Bank, 2017). Furthermore, these structures that shape the livelihoods of rural men and women also contribute to power and resource inequalities as women become reliant on men for access to productive resources such as land. Thus, due to financial and gender institutional constraints, among others (land, marriage security), women adapt poorly to climate change than men. The lack of resources limits their negotiation power (threat points) within households and communities, further limiting their voices in climate adaptation strategies at both household and community levels. Moreover, the recurrent droughts and floods in Zimbabwe are putting pressure on male members to migrate to better livelihoods, leaving behind women with the sole responsibility of daily household food security. The gender roles and positions of rural men and women in Zimbabwe are a result of colonial history, superimposed in patriarchal culture, aggravated by the national economic doldrums which cause male-out migration for better livelihoods (Cheater, 1986). The continued increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme weather events worsens the already unequal gender and power relations in smallholder communities in Zimbabwe (Chidakwa et al., 2020). Chidakwa et al. (2020) noted the increased vulnerability of female-headed households (both de jure and de facto) due to climate-related male migration. Thus, in any form of crisis, women are less capable of dealing with shocks because of material resources and socio-cultural constraints (FAO, 2022). Development interventions like microfinance and climate change adaptation should, therefore, continuously look at ways to ensure women receive gender-appropriate support to strengthen their resilience. Thus, a gender lens is crucial in climate change adaptation interventions. 3. Methodology A qualitative descriptive research design was adopted in conducting the study to study the phenomenon under natural settings. Data underpinning this paper were obtained from fourteen villages in Sanyati District in Zimbabwe’s Mashonaland West Province (as shown in Figure 1) using interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis. A total of 65 respondents were purposively selected and structured in-depth personal interview guides and critical informant interview guides were used to obtain data. The interviews were conducted from 20 June 2021 to October 2021. The interviews that were carried out as reflected in table 1 and the target sample number of participants was 45 and male number was 20, giving a total of 65 targeted sample. From the targeted total sample number of 65, the number of total responses was 61, giving us a women response rate of 100 percent, and men 80 percent, PESD 2023, 17, 1 36 amounting to the total response rate of 94 percent. The study results are satisfactory, reliable, and therefore apply to gendered politics in small-holder agriculture in rural Zimbabwe. The empirical findings from the fourteen villages in a resettlement area of Sanyati District are categorized into rural women farmland rights, women empowerment, agricultural markets, human and physical capital, and women education and extension services. Table 1: Response Rate from Interviews Target respondents Target Sample No. of Responses Response Rate (%) Place of interviews in Sanyati Male 20 16 80 Ward 5 Female 45 45 100 Total 65 61 94 (Source: Fieldwork, 2019) From the interview guides the data obtained were transcribed. Then, transcribed data were coded using NVIVO. The data was analyzed based on emerging themes on gendered politics on small-holder agriculture. Observations were also used to understand small-holder farmers’ experiences. 4. Results and discussion The following section discusses the results from the field. 4.1 Rural women farmland rights Regarding landownership rights, the results were skewed in favor of men owning 90% of the land, widowed women owning 6% of the land as a result of transfer from their deceased spouses. Like in most communal areas of Zimbabwe, women in Sanyati District own land through their husbands. Findings show that women in their own right own only 4% of the land, and these women had total control over the land, and this gave them the power to decide how to use the land, which crops to grow, where and how to sell the crops. However, the widows owned the land as transitional custodians who cannot mortgage the land or take loans using the land. This is because the widows are custodians of the land, which will later be taken over by their male children who are currently working in urban areas. These findings resonate with the findings obtained by Ferguson and Moosa (2011), who found out that women farmers are invisible to policymakers as they are not the most productive farmers because they do not usually own the land they till and produce food for subsistence purposes. Despite women’s increasing engagement in farming and quasi changes of laws and policy favoring small-holder farmers, these farmers are still faced with gender-related hurdles to acquiring exclusive land rights and security of tenure. The failure to own land affects the women’s propensity to making decisions in their homes and community. In most cases, their decisions are limited on the crops they can grow. This result in women growing crops meant for household use and may not grow cash crops. The processes to acquiring land titles are not friendly to women. Moreover, women have no financial capacity to purchase land for themselves. Other research from other parts of Zimbabwe reveal that while married women get small pieces of land for 'female crop' production, unmarried daughters would get land from kin, and older women have land rights to big land and own big livestock like cattle (Bhatasara and Chiweshe, 2017). Women from the Shona tribe possessed some autonomy (usufruct rights) for agricultural production, depending on the nature of their relationship to landowners, age, number of children, and marital status (autonomy increased with marriage, age, number of children and if given by spouse) (Cheater, PESD 2023, 17, 1 37 1986). Conversely, for Ndebele women, they did not have land rights as they were dependent on men. 4.2 Female Empowerment at village level Women’s empowerment in the rural communities of Sanyati is confined to unproductive assets and resources instead of land and exclusive rights to it. Study results show that although there appears to be more empowerment for men or less empowerment for women from the national government and its departments, women empower themselves through various ways. The savings clubs and credit groups, stokvel/round (locally known as Mukando), which are very common for women in Sanyati District, leverage poor women’s power and control than they would with other institutions in terms of money. Clearly, 25 per cent of women surveyed are members of such groups. Somehow, this has helped them to exercise leadership at the village level. As found, these have to bear to their farming activities. However, it should be stated that there is also unwillingness and lack of commitment among rural women farmers to take part in the process to empower themselves. The study found that there are no land rights and advocacy forums. Women empowerment remains the standing issue. Despite the Government of Zimbabwe’s promulgation of the empowerment programs and policies, for instance, the Indigenous and Economic Empowerment laws and devolution policies, the role of women in farming have not been negated. Village and ward development committees (VIDCOs and WADCOs), for instance, created under the auspices of the Provincial Councils Act of 1985to decentralize functions failed to regard empowerment of women. On the same note, District Development Fund (DDF) and Non-Governmental organizations such as Women and Land in Zimbabwe (WLZ) are not much effective in women empowerment; in fact, there have never attempted to set up platforms and programme to educate women. Arguably this has trickle-down effects in the farming activities of women Women rarely have a say in the distribution of farming inputs along political party lines. The Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), since 1980, have been making promises for women economic empowerment but never showed commitment to the initiatives. Political empowerment is essential to heap on women’s decision-making power at all levels and control for resources such as land, and so increasing their involvement in the critical sectors of the economy and agriculture is no exception. Hence, empowering both men and women equally will make them become better and more successful farmers. Besides that, when women are empowered, the quality of life in rural households is improved as (Tirivangasi and Tayengwa, 2017), confirms that women are known to utilize more resources on their family welfare, health, and education. The fundamental pre-cursor to empowering rural women is to bolster their education and decision-making power starting from the household level up to the community level by creating local decision-making institutions or bodies and giving women land rights. However, usually, women are empowered to become literate, and lack of functional literacy impede women even from accessing and understanding information such as agricultural extension services and market-related information (Kacharo, 2007). Notably, women need to be empowered in facets of life. According to FAO (2010), women empowerment in the agricultural sector is relatively easy when they can manage resources and make decisions about food production and income. It is crucial to stop rural women disempowerment through broadening and flexing women farmland ownerships. 4.3 Agricultural markets Results show that the markets for cash crops such as cotton are far away from their home, and most of them are eight kilometers away from the market, and for perishables, some are in major towns such as Harare. Ten women respondents say they walk carrying PESD 2023, 17, 1 38 beans, maize, vegetables, sweet potatoes, and groundnuts stacked on their heads, searching for buyers and face cut-throat competition from already established vendors and sellers. They then resort to door-to-door selling, offering their “throw-away” prices, and in most cases, potential buyers extort or cajole them through bargaining. This again shortchanges women as they usually do not go to the market to sell their farm products. The issue is aggravated with the absence of cash at the market. Women revealed that even when they had the opportunity to go to the market at times, the non-availability of money complicates the issue as they may not be able to visit the market on consecutive days to wait for cash. Therefore, they send their husbands or male children because of the long distances involved, considering the demanding chores at home. This limits women’s access to the market and leaves men with the opportunity to abuse the income paid for the crop without the knowledge of their wives. Often, there a no competitive and readily available market for other crops except cotton locally, which usually makes it difficult to market the crops. Buyers of crops, grain and groundnuts usually offer bargain-basement prices, and usually, people sell the crops because they will be in dire need of cash. The lack of fixed markets and price fluctuations are some of the challenges facing women farmers in Zimbabwe (Nyikahadzoi et al., 2012). The study shows that the absence of market training and techniques among women farmers negatively affects their approach and access to markets. Women’s produce from the farms after harvest usually lacks quality due to the post-harvest challenge of poor storage, resulting in pest infestations and rotten crops, thus leaving their households in serious financial and food shortages. Due to the poor quality of the farm products, traders at the markets in Zimbabwe take advantage to offer low market pricesa monopoly against women farmers. As these women lack marketing skills and market information about pricing dynamics and ongoing trends, their negotiation power with their clients is compromised. Then with meagre income for women farmers, it entails that women cannot afford to send their children to school, leading to mass drop-outs from schools with girls becoming housemaids or sex workers or forced into early marriage. It is a vicious cycle. In the densely populated villages of the Sanyati District, women depend on subsistence agriculture to eke their living; women are vulnerable. A lack of technical advisory services on, for instance, the soil pH, right fertilizers, and seeds according to Agro-Ecological Regions climate and the unreliability of rains exacerbated by poor access to markets are some of the challenges. Also, the scope and nature of agricultural employment in the case of women in Sanyati District has undergone a huge transformation for the past two decades. 4.4 Extension services In terms of input credit scheme, it has been revealed that men usually are the ones who are registered as input beneficiaries at most households. Usually, the inputs were said to be utilized in the growing of the most common cash crop in the area which is cotton. Women respondents also revealed that at times the inputs do not reach home as men tend to sell the inputs at the shopping Centre where they receive the inputs and the money is spent on alcoholic drinks, drugs and women. This leaves women with inadequate or no modern inputs to use in their farming activities. Consequently, they tend to grow most of their crops without fertilizer and adequate chemicals. It emerged that this is one of the major reasons why yields in most farms are usually average to below-average despite the farmers having received adequate inputs and above-average rainfall. The AGRITEX department housed in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement in Zimbabwe is one of the most decentralized extension services providers with branches on agronomy agribusiness, farm management, training and land use. The training branch embraces gender mainstreaming through its in-service training curriculum for farmer leaders and its workers, field officers (locally known as PESD 2023, 17, 1 39 Madhumeni/Varimisi), which is currently composed of more than 45 per cent women. However, the study indicates that despite their decentralization, extension services lack the momentous drive to gender equality at village levels in Sanyati. In addition, the types of crops that are grown by households were revealed by both men and women respondents that cotton is regarded as a male crop, maize a crop for both sexes and nuts and small grains were women crops. This showed that women had limited say in the marketing of cotton and the income generated from the crop. Considering that men are the beneficiaries of credit access, the respondents revealed that when it comes to marketing the crop, the buyers demand that credit beneficiaries’ details be used. 4.5 Smallholder agriculture Although marred with contextual variations and definitional challenges (Kamara, 2019), small-holder farming is generically characterized by land sizes, labor, access to land, (World Bank, 2003; FAO, 2002), and market orientation (Kamara et al., 2019), physical capital and technology. Farms of two hectares or less constitute small-holder farming (Kamara et al., 2019; Wiggins and Keats, 2013). Small-holder farms are very diverse, typically less than 5 hectares and usually vary significantly across countries depending on geographical locations and context (Aid environment, 2013; Eastwood et al., 2009). According to Ngweno et al., (2018), a small-holder farmer cultivates a small piece of land, not a large scale commercial farm. Garner and de la O Campos (2014) note that the word small-holder is interchangeably used with low income, subsistence, small-scale and family-farmer. Clearly, a small-holder farmer does not own a significant piece of land. For the purposes of this study, the researchers embrace Wiggins and Keats (2013) and Kamara et al. (2019) definitions as it is appropriate to the Zimbabwean context. Zimbabwe’s agriculture is dominated by small-holder farmers in rural areas (Dzvimbo et al., 2017), which constitutes nearly 75 percent of agricultural activities in Zimbabwe; and this economic sector is dominated by women within what is known as A1 farms. A1 farms came out of the necessity to provide easy access to land by the rural poor. These farms require an application for one to be a land permit holder. The permit holders have the right to the land for various uses such as agricultural, residential, and pastoral and infrastructural developments such as silos and boreholes. In this regard, for women holding permit entails monopoly over the operations on land or farm. However, the allocation of A1 farms is undertaken within the confines of rural local or village customary systems and in these systems spring up land-gender related conflicts (Goebel, 2005). In the past, before the promulgation of these systems, women were only allowed to own land through patrilineal lines, that is, accessing land through a brother, husband or male member of the family (Goebel, 2005). Notably, on average, small-holder households in rural Zimbabwe own two hectares or less of land, and 35 percent of small-holder farmers owns less than 1.5 hectares of plot sizes. However, since 2000, due to exponential population growth in rural Zimbabwe of more than 65 percent, there has been a considerable decline inform sizes. Due to growing families, the available land tends to be fragmented to give male sons. The population density in rural villages is rising but with no increase in arable land. In Zimbabwe, small-holder farmers makeup 70 percent of food production in the country and a remixed farming with much crop diversification, including maize farming and other small crops such as groundnuts. In most cases, these farms are rain-fed and irrigated intermittently due to the climate change and rainfall variability induced drying up of rivers. 4.6 Gendered land question: Why should women own land? Land forms the bedrock of economic activities such as farming, rearing of animals and is a significant asset for households that rely on farming for their livelihoods. The land has been recognized as a primary source of wealth, power and social status PESD 2023, 17, 1 40 (Nyamudeza, 2012; Costa, 2010; Komjathy and Nichols, 2001; FAO, 2002; Mkandawira, and Matlosa, 1995). Regardless of its increasing scarcity, women are sidelined for its ownership. Women traditionally owned a socially defined minimum land from their husbands’ holding (Chidzonga, 1993; Nyahunda and Tirivangasi, 2021) before colonial capitalism. Nyamudeza (2012) argues those changes in societal set up due to colonialism eradicated women’s rights and their social status. Due to local and traditional inheritance systems, access to and control of land by women is limited (Jere, 2008; Nyahunda & Tirivangasi, 2022). This makes women-headed households vulnerable, and upon the death of their husbands or divorce, they usually lose the title to the land. This is the prevailing case in Zimbabwe. Nyamudeza (2012) argues that while the Utete Report of 2003 had recommended a 40% allocation for women, especially in A1 peasant farmers, the recommendation has not been implemented by the government despite the population of women in Zimbabwe being around 52%, less than 18% of the beneficiaries were women, and thus this has resulted in women having less access to land. Empowering women through access to land is essential in improving their social status and will enhance agricultural productivity and food security (Chigwenya and Ndhlovu, 2016; Tirivangasi et al., 2021) as well as welfare. Women land ownership develops avenues for the decision-making power of women within the small-scale farming industry. In this regard, women should have equal rights, same as men in owning land and other economic resources, and when they own land, they can increase productivity. However, the trend in Zimbabwe is that women’s rights are confined to unproductive assets and resources instead of land and exclusive rights to it. In this regard, the study observes that women’s access to land is not entirely important per se; rather, exclusive ownership is critical. 4.7 Rural agricultural feminization Feminization is the swing in gender roles and sex roles in a society, group, or organization towards a focus upon the feminine. More so, feminization entails the integration of women into a group that was once traditionally predominated by men as advocated by the sustainable development goal 5, which promotes gender equality. Traditionally, women farmers are not considered as farmers. The rural-urban migration of men and middle-aged women leaves a large share of rural women-headed households in rural Zimbabwe with mass responsibilities, including farming and other household duties. As agriculture and rural areas are becoming “feminised” (Pattnaik, 2017; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2008), in Zimbabwe, it is observable that 55 percent of women are not title holders to the farmland they cultivate, a situation that is against gender balance and women’s economic development. 4.8 Zimbabwe’s context to gender and agriculture 4.8.1 Socio-cultural and economic context The socio-cultural context in Zimbabwe prejudices women due to its patriarchal nature. The study conducted by Chiweshe (2015) and Kambarami (2006) shows that the patriarchal tendencies and values of indigenous Zimbabwe rural society have ensured that women remain outside the influential decision-making positions. As such, women are victims of multifarious upshots of gender-biased socio-cultural and religious values, customs, attitudes, beliefs, gender norms, inter alia, social barriers and constructs. Inheritance and property bequeathment are traditionally patriarchal in which the ancestral property is passed through the male line, except for in some cases where it is matrilineal in which ancestral property is passed through the female line (Kambarami, 2006; Hooks, 2004). Vorley, et al. (2012) view the prevalence of patriarchal sociocultural attitudes and practices in most developing countries as engendering women, particularly rural women, to face inequalities in accessing essential services and productive assets. In this respect, Baden and Pionettia (2011) posit that by doing a more PESD 2023, 17, 1 47 9. Chidzonga M. (1993) The Situation of Women in Agriculture in the Communal Areas of Zimbabwe, In Mkandawire. R. and Matlosa, K. (eds) Food Policy and Agriculture in Southern Africa. SAPES, Harare 10. Chigwenya A.; Ndhlovu P. (2016) Women, Land Use, Property Rights and Sustainable Development in Zimbabwe. In: Etim J. (eds) Introduction to Gender Studies in Eastern and Southern Africa. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. 11. Chitsike, F. (2003) A critical analysis of land reform programme in Zimbabwe. A paper presented at 2nd FIG regional Conference on Management of Land, Marrakech, Morocco. 12. Chiweshe, M.K. (2015) Women and the Emergence of Grassroots Institutions onPost-Fast Track Farms in Zimbabwe; Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1, 40 – 53. https://10.22004/ag.econ.246041 13. Clancy, J.S.; Skutsch, M.; Batchelor, S. (2002) The gender-energy-poverty nexus: Finding the energy to address gender concerns in development (DFID Project Document No. CNTR998521). Department for International Development (DFID), London, UK. 14. Costa, B. (2010) Women’s rights and access to land: The last stretch of road to eradicate hunger. ActionAid, Dhaka. 15. Delmar, R. (2018) What is feminism? In Theorizing feminism, Routledge, London, (pp. 5-28). 16. Denning, G.; Kabambe, P.; Sanchez, P.; Malik, A.; Flor, R.; Harawa, R.; Magombo, C. (2009) Input subsidies to improve small-holder maize productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution. PLoS Biol, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000023 17. Dzvimbo M.A.; Monga, M.; Mashizha T.M. (2017) The Link between Rural Institutions and Rural Development: Reflections on Smallholder Farmers and Donors in Zimbabwe. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.9790/08372206064653 18. Eastwood R.; Lipton M.; Newell A. (2009) Farm size. In: Pingali; P. and R. Evenson (eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Amsterdam, Elsevier. 19. FAO (2022) The status of women in agrifood systems. FAO, Rome. 20. FAO (2002) FAO land tenure studies: Gender and access to land. FAO, Rome. 21. FAO (2010) Gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: Differentiated pathways out of poverty, status, trends and gaps. FAO, Rome. 22. FAO (2011) The State of Food and Agriculture 2010 –2011, Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. FAO, Rome. 23. FAO (2017) National gender profile of agriculture and rural livelihoods – Zimbabwe: Country Gender Assessment Series. FAO, Rome. 24. Ferguson, L.; Moosa, Z. (2011) Farming as Equals: How supporting women’s rights and gender equality makes the difference. Available online: https://actionaid.org/publications/2011/farming-equals-how-supporting-womens-rightsand-gender-equality-makes-difference (Accessed on 12 June 2022). 25. Garner E.; de la O Campos A.P. (2014) Identifying the “family farm”: an informal discussion of the concepts and definitions. ESA Working Paper No. 14-10. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4306e.pdf (Accessed on 7 April 2020). 26. Garutsa, T.C.; Mubaya, C.P.; Zhou, L. (2018) Gendered differentials in climate change adaptation amongst the Shona ethnic group in Marondera rural district, Zimbabwe: a social inclusions lens. AAS Open Research, 1(14). https://doi.org/10.12688/aasopenres.12826.1. 27. Gelling, L. (2013) A feminist approach to research. Nurse Researcher, 21,6. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.09.21.1.6.s2 PESD 2023, 17, 1 48 28. Goebel, A. (2005) Zimbabwe’s fast track land reform; What about women? Gender, Place and Culture, 12, 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690500094799 29. GZI [Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbert] (2013) Gender and Agricultural Extension. Availabe on: https://www.gfras.org/en/knowledge/documents/category/17-gender.html?download=162:gender-andagricultural-extension. (Accessed on: 5 July 2021). 30. Hoffman, J. (2001) Defining feminism. Politics, 21, 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679256.00151 31. Hooks, B. (2004) Understanding patriarchy. In The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love (pp. 17–25). Washington Square Press, New York, NY. 32. Jamir, M.A. (2022) A Critical Analysis of Writers Post Third Wave Feminism. Journal of Multidisciplinary Cases, 2, 16-21. https://doi.org/10.55529/jmc.22.16.21 33. Jere, P. (2008) Food Security in the SADC: Situation Analysis and Review of Gender Linkages: In Ruiters M. (ed): Gender Instruments in Africa: Consolidating Gains in the Southern African Development Community. Acumen Publishing, Johannesburg. 34. Kacharo, D.K. (2007) Agricultural Information Networks of Farm Women and Role of Agricultural Extension: The Case of Dale Woreda, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region,Available on: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/710 (Accessed on: 5 July 2021). 35. Kamara, L.I.; Dorward, P.; Lalani, B.; Wauters, E. (2019) Unpacking the drivers behind the use of the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) approach: The case of rice research and extension professionals in Sierra Leone. Agricultural Systems, 176, 102673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102673 36. Kambarami, M. (2006) Femininity, Sexuality and Culture: Patriarchy and Female Subordination in Zimbabwe. University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape. Available on: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/femininity-sexuality-and-culturepatriarchy-and-female-subordination-zimbabwe/. (Accessed on: 15 June 2021). 37. Kes, A.; Swaminathan, H. (2006) Gender and time poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Available on: https://sarpn.org/documents/d0002049/Gender_Poverty_WorldBank_2006.pdf#page=27 38. Komjathy, K.; Nichols, S. (2001) Principles for Equitable Gender Inclusion in Land Administration: FIG Guidelines on Women’s Access to Land, New Technology for a New Century International Conference FIG Working Wee, Seoul. 39. Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (2008) Background Paper for the World Development Report 2008: Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces, Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural Development. Available on: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/655741468338477909/pdf/41367optmzd0 Fe1Agriculture01PUBLIC1.pdf. (Available on: 12 June 2021). 40. Makura, E.S.; Ndabaningi, A.; Chikwiri, E. (2016) Gender dynamics in climate change adaptation strategies with particular focus on Goromonzi District, Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe. Global Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5, 11-13. 41. Manjengwa, J.; Hanlon, J.; Smart, T. (2014) Who will make the ‘best’use of Africa’s land? Lessons from Zimbabwe. Third World Quarterly, 35(6), 980-995. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.907722 42. Mkandawira, L.; Matlosa, B. (1995) Agricultural politics in Zimbabwe: A case of ESAP. SAPES, Harare. PESD 2023, 17, 1 49 43. Mudombi, S.; Muchie, M. (2013) Perceptions of water access in the context of climate change by rural households in the Seke and Murewa districts, Zimbabwe. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 5, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v5i1.71 44. Muzari W. (2016) Gender Disparities and the Role of Women in Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Science and Research, 5, 18691873. 45. Ngweno, A.; Oldja, L.; Hassan, M.; Kapoor, P. (2018) Demand-side review of Financial Inclusion for women in Entrepreneurship and small-holder Agriculture, Ottawa, International Development Research Centre (IDRC). 46. Nhuta, S.; Mukumba, E. (2017) Empowerment of Zimbabwean Women through Entrepreneurship an Economic and Social Perspective. International Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 7, 373-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jmss.v7.n3.p1 47. Nyahunda, L.; Tirivangasi, H.M. (2021) Harnessing of Social Capital as a Determinant for Climate Change Adaptation in Mazungunye Communal Lands in Bikita, Zimbabwe. Scientifica, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8416410 48. Nyahunda, L. ; Tirivangasi, H.M. (2022) Adaptation strategies employed by rural women in the face of climate change impacts in Vhembe district, Limpopo province, South Africa. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 33, 1061-1075. 49. Nyamudeza, K. (2012) Gender Dynamics in cotton production: A case study of A1 farmers in Sessombi, Kwekwe district, Zimbabwe, Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, University of Zimbabwe. Department. 50. Nyikahadzoi, K.; Siziba, S.; Mango, N.; Mapfumo, P.; Adekunhle, A.; Fatunbi, O. (2012) Creating food self -reliance among the smallholder farmers of eastern Zimbabwe: Exploring the role of integrated agricultural research for development. Food Security, 4, 647-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0218-8 51. OECD (2006) ‘Enhancing Women’s Market Access and Promoting Pro-poor Growth’. Available on: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/enhancing-women-s-market-access-and-promoting-propoor-growth_5l4tf06fjpnn.pdf. (Accessed on: 5 June 2021). 52. Pattnaik, I.; Lahiri-Dutt, K.; Lockie, S.; Pritchard, B. (2018) The feminization of agriculture or the feminization of agrarian distress? Tracking the trajectory of women in agriculture in India. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23, 138-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2017.1394569 53. Perry, D. (2002) Microcredit and women moneylenders: The shifting terrain of credit in rural Senegal, Human Organization, 61, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.61.1.dju40406h8cdp92y 54. Peterman, A. J. Behrman and A. Quisumbing. (2011). A Review of Empirical Evidence on Gender Differences in Non-Land Agricultural Inputs, Technology and Services in Developing Countries. ESA Working Paper No. 11-11, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available on: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am316e/am316e00.pdf. (Accessed on: April 25, 2020). 55. Quisumbing, A.R.; Pandolfelli, L. (2010) Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints and Interventions, World Development, 38, 581592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.10.006 56. Ravera, F.; Martín-López, B.; Pascual, U.; Drucker, A. (2016) The diversity of gendered adaptation strategies to climate change of Indian farmers: A feminist intersectional approach. Ambio, 45, 335-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0833-2 57. Statutory Instrument 54 of 2014. Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations.Available on: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEXFAOC158139/. (Accessed on: April 25, 2020). PESD 2023, 17, 1 50 58. Tirivangasi, H.M.; Tayengwa, D. (2017) Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and food security in South Africa: Is land reform a prerequisite. Journal of Human Ecology, 57(3), 118-124. 59. Tirivangasi, H.M.; Nyahunda, L.; Mabila, T.; Zingwena, T. (2021) Exploring Humanitarian response strategies in the aftermath of disasters induced by climate change in Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2021.2018289 60. Troicare (2015) Gender and Agriculture in Troicare Programmes – Status and practical recommendation. Available on: https://www.trocaire.org/sites/default/files/resources/policy/gender-agriculture.pdf. (Accessed on: April 25, 2020). 61. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2008). Sanyati District Map. Available on: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/zimbabwe/infographic/sanyatidistrict-map. (Accessed on: April 25, 2020). 62. Utete, C. (2003) Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee on the Implementation of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme, 2000 – 2002 (“The Utete Report”). Available on: http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0000622/P600-Utete_PLRC_0002. (Accessed on: January 25 2020). 63. Vorley, B.; Cotula, L.; Chan, M.K. (2012) Tipping the Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and markets in favour of small-scale farmers, Research Report, Oxfam, Oxford. 64. Walby, S. (2011) The future of feminism. Polity Press, Cambridge. 65. Wiggins, S.; Keats, S. (2013) Smallholder agriculture’s contribution to better nutrition/ Report Commissioned by the Hunger Alliance. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 20 March 2013. Overseas Development Institute, London. Available on: https://odi.org/en/publications/smallholder-agricultures-contribution-to-better-nutrition/ (Accessed on: January 25 2020). 66. World Bank (2003) Reaching the Rural Poor: A Renewed Strategy for Rural Development. Available on: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14084. (Accessed on: January 25, 2020). 67. World Bank. (2019) World development report. The changing nature of work. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available on: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2019. (Accessed on: January 25, 2020). 68. Zamasiya, B.; Nyikahadzoi, K.; Mukamuri, B.B. (2017) Factors influencing smallholder farmers' behavioural intention towards adaptation to climate change in transitional climatic zones: A case study of Hwedza District in Zimbabwe. Journal of Environmental Management, 198, 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.073. (Accessed on: January 25, 2020). 69. Zimbabwe Statistics (2012) Zimbabwe Population Census report. Available on: https://www.zimstat.co.zw/. (Accessed on: January 25, 2020). © 2023 by the authors. Licensee UAIC, Iasi, Romania. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0).