Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform at 20: exploring disability inclusion and the attendant policy implications

Abstract

This article interrogates disability inclusion two decades after Zimbabwe’s fast-tracked land reform and the associated policy pathways for improving the situation of people with disabilities in an agrarian context. Exploring the country’s land reform through disability inclusion lenses is largely missing in literature and policy. Using disability inclusion and interpretivism as the evaluative conceptual framing and heuristic research approach in a rural district respectively, the article shows that latent and manifest politics of inclusion and exclusion influence people with disabilities’ formal and informal access to land and agrarian support. Accordingly, the article advances the significance of a sturdy transformative agenda that prioritizes this often-sidelined group in the productive, redistributive, reproductive, protective and social compact outcomes of the land reform. This approach tackles the structural causes of marginalization, inequality and poverty in pursuit of generating and sustaining the wellbeing of people with disabilities.

Points of interest

• The article explores disability inclusion in Zimbabwe’s land reform and agriculture against a background where such focus is limited.

• Gaps in scholarly literature and policy relating to disability inclusion and agrarian studies are prioritized.

• The article is a product of research with, not research on people with disabilities therefore is informed by their lived experiences and situated meanings of inclusion and exclusion.

• Equitable sharing of agricultural land and inclusive support are important in addressing the main causes of exclusion, inequality and poverty.

• The aim of the article is to improve the redistribution, production, reproduction, protection and social compact outcomes of Zimbabwe’s land reform in relation to people with disabilities.

Introduction

Disability is among the core social constructs globally (Zhao and Zhang 2018). Disability inclusion is an often overlooked vector of land reform and development (Mangwanya and Manyeruke 2020) in a context where land forms the crux of African affairs and development (Chambati and Mazwi 2020; Murisa 2020). In Zimbabwe, the transformation of the agrarian structure from bimodal to trimodal marked the country’s post-colonial socioeconomic and political texture (Chiweshe and Chabata 2019; Mkodzongi 2018). Broadly, in the Global South and particularly in Zimbabwe, agriculture is the mainstay of livelihoods, social protection and social reproduction (Chipenda 2020a, 2021) and development and reconstruction (Mkodzongi and Lawrence 2019; Moyo 2011a). Among the core motivations, the Government of Zimbabwe implemented land reform to transform socioeconomic development, and to achieve social justice particularly for the benefit of the majority of the indigenous population that had been covertly and overtly marginalized and impoverished through British colonialist racially-skewed land policy (Shonhe 2019; Utete 2003). While acknowledging internal variations, a large corpus of pivotal literature on Zimbabwe’s land reform informed by various ideological and epistemological standpoints is accumulating (see for example, Helliker and Bhatasara 2018; Chipenda 2020b; Chambati 2017; Chambati, Mazwi and Mberi 2018a, 2018b; Marewo 2019; Mkodzongi and Lawrence 2019; Moyo 1995; Mudimu et al. 2021; Thebe, 2018; Scoones et al. 2020; Shonhe 2018).

The reconfiguration of Zimbabwe’s rural landscape through the fast track led to the redistribution of 13 million hectares of land to 180,000 families (170,000 in A1 and 10,000 in A2 schemes) within a short space of time (Scoones 2015; Moyo 2013). Such a target had not been met in earlier phases of land acquisition and resettlement. To this end, Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform has been presented as redistributive, and having immense potential to improve transformative social policy outcomes (Chibwana 2016; Chipenda 2019; Tekwa and Adesina 2018). However, there is consensus among scholars that despite extensive land redistribution, the country’s land and agrarian questions have not been fully resolved (Chipenda 2018; Mazwi and Mudimu 2019). One such land question pertains to the inclusion of people with disabilities in accessing land and agrarian support. These lacunae have led to what is termed the disability question in this article. Accordingly, this article addresses the question, ‘Were people with disabilities included in the fast-track land reform, and more importantly, how is their situation in relation to accessing land and related agrarian support two decades after?’ Consciously addressing this question improves land reform and disability literature, policy and practice within and beyond Zimbabwe.

In this article, focus is restricted on the people with sensory impairments (visual and hearing) and mobility challenges. Scholarly focus on disability is not new in Zimbabwe (see van der Mark and Verrest 2014; Chimedza 1998; Devlieger 1995; Mutasa 2000). However, these colossal scholars did not focus on disability in the context of agrarian studies. Although not over-emphasizing the importance of disability inclusion in land reform and broadly, agrarian studies, acknowledging diversity among people with disabilities (see Black and de Matos-Ala 2016), and the debate on ‘ordinary’ land beneficiaries (see Moyo et al. 2009; James 2015; Mkodzongi 2013), the article provides fresh insights, anchored on field-based evidence and nuanced analysis. This novel contribution is grounded in a disability inclusion conceptual framework and a transformative agenda that suggests pathways for improving the wellbeing of people with disabilities. The significance of disability inclusion gains greater prominence especially in current efforts where emphasis is on understanding and improving the outcomes of Zimbabwe’s land reform; and international focus being increasingly crystallized around tackling poverty, inequality and marginalization (see United Nations 2019). Consequently, research that is conceptually-sound, empirically-grounded, ideologically-transcendent and that informs policy to improve the wellbeing of people with disabilities is indispensable.

The article is composed of five parts. In the immediately ensuing part, the conceptual underpinnings of the article are explored. Principally, the significance of disability inclusion with its thrust on social justice, and improving the wellbeing of people with disabilities is justified. Under research process, the study area, specific sites, the research approach adopted, data collection, research ethics and data analysis are explored. In the third part, the field-based evidence and insights are presented under Results. Pertinent to the fourth part (the Discussion), is interrogation showing that the majority of people with disabilities were peripheralized in relation to formal and informal access to land, and agrarian support. Twenty years later, this situation is enduring. These fundamental aspects shape the main message of this article, and the associated transformative recommendations are provided in the Conclusion.

Disability inclusion

Scholars may adopt various conceptual frames, and epistemological and ideological standpoints to analyze the processes and outcomes of Zimbabwe’s fast-tracked land reform (see Chibwana 2016; Zamchiya 2011). Disability inclusion was adopted primarily due to its centrality to the thrust of the article. Globally, disability inclusion is gaining momentum (Bonaccio et al. 2020; Narayanan, Terris and Cole 2021; Slee 2019), and is increasingly becoming a ‘tool’ for addressing social injustice and disadvantage in society (Reeves et al. 2022; Ibanez 2012); and evaluating development and governance (United Nations 2019). It is crystallized around attaining social justice for the benefit of people with disabilities. Disability inclusion involves recognizing the multidimensional nature of exclusion based on disability, and advances fair sharing of resources; equal access to opportunities and rights; fair system of law and due process; active participation of people with disabilities (Kyung, Hall and Jung 2021; Spagnuolo and Shanouda 2017); ability to take up opportunities and exercising rights; support and protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and protection of individual property rights (Niewohner, Pierson, and Meyers 2020; Hibbert 2017).

A just society is one that understands and values human rights, and the dignity of all human beings (United Nations 2019; United Nations Department for Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA) 2019). Addressing structural poverty, inequality and unfairness, recognition of human value and wellbeing, and empowering vulnerable and disadvantaged people is engrained in social justice. With 15% of the world’s population experiencing some form of disability (World Bank 2019), and persons with disabilities being more likely to experience adverse socioeconomic outcomes than persons without disabilities due to diverse barriers to full social and economic inclusion (Cortese et al. 2021), disability inclusion should be indispensable in development and governance, and active citizenship (Earle and Boucher 2021). The United Nations has made headway in advancing a disability perspective, and broadly, social inclusion in development and governance through global frameworks (see the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (UN 2006); United Nations Partnership on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNPRPD; the 2019 UN Disability Inclusion Strategy, UNDIS and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The Agenda notes that poverty increases the risk of disability and disability increases the risk of poverty, and clearly states that, disability cannot be a reason or criteria for lack of access to development programming and realization of human rights (United Nations 2019). Disability inclusion frameworks and policies are also notable at regional level (see the SADC Disability Protocol), and national level (for example, Zimbabwe’s Disabled Persons Act 1992 and subsequent amendments). However, the existence of a disability framework or policy may not imply its application (Green et al. 2022; Mellifont and Smith-Merry 2016).

Disability inclusion is imperative in upholding and enforcing fairness in various areas including distribution of resources (Bonaccio et al. 2020; Ho et al. 2011; Mukhopadhyay and Moswela 2020). For example, in Zimbabwe where people mostly depend on land availability and use for survival, prosperity and improving wellbeing (see Chambati and Mazwi 2020); social protection and reproduction (Chipenda 2019; Tekwa and Adesina 2018); national reconstruction (Moyo 2013), and where agriculture accounts for livelihoods and employment for more than 90% of households (USAID in Zimbabwe Democracy Institute 2020, 1), fair sharing of land and other key resources is an imperative. In such a context, the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities should be integral dimensions of policy and program design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and learning.

Research process

The pertinent aspects of the research process are presented in this section. These include the study area, specific study sites and entry; research approach, sampling, data gathering and exit and data management, analysis and interpretation.

The study area, context and entry

Shamva, located north-east of Harare (Zimbabwe’s capital), is one of the eight districts constituting Mashonaland Central Province (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2012). Shamva and Bindura towns are the district’s administrative and commercial hubs. Agrarian research pertaining to this district is limited (see James 2015; Bhatasara and Helliker 2018). None of these scholars focused on disability inclusion but they explored other fundamental aspects of the fast track. Their contributions are authoritative in laying the context, geographies, histories and politics of the district, and the chosen A1 study sites (Chiraramo and Golden Star Farms). In addition to fertile soils suitable for crop production, Shamva and the neighboring districts (Bindura and Mazowe) are endowed with mineral deposits especially gold.

Both Golden Star and Chiraramo are A1 farms. Golden Star, and the other two farms owned by the former white commercial farmer (The Ridge and Soma), were informally occupied in 2000. Chiraramo is near Ceres Farm (owned by Nicholas Goche, the previously Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, ZANU PF kingpin, and other A2 farms where the land beneficiaries provide farm labor in addition to utilizing their own plots (James 2015). Both study sites were initially occupied informally by people from neighboring communal areas (CAs) (Chakonda, Jiti, Madziwa, Musiiwa). Most of the occupants at Chiraramo initially occupied Ceres Farm but later were displaced to other A1 farms, and CAs to allow for the occupation of the farm by Nicholas Goche.

Entry into the district involved negotiating with and convincing the gatekeepers (the district co-ordinator also known as district administrator, village heads, councillors, representatives of ruling party local structures), and managing local politics that is influenced by national politics. The district and the resettlement areas in particular have, since inception, been the stronghold of the ruling party – the ZANU PF (Bhatasara and Helliker 2018). However, with increasing legitimation crisis riddling the ruling party against opposition political parties, mainly the Movement for Democratic Change – Alliance (MDC-A), research in the area is highly political, censored and sanctioned. However, approval letters sought from the provincial government offices and the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement; proof that the research is purely for academic purposes; clearance by the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and absence of a criminal record; sound rapport and accumulating networks in the district smoothened entry and execution of fieldwork.

Research approach, sampling, data collection and exit

An interpretive-dominant research approach and its incumbent qualitative-dominant data collection methods (see Lincoln and Guba 2000; Creswell and Plano Clark 2017) facilitated indepth exploration of the situation of people with disabilities in relation to access to land and agricultural support two decades after Zimbabwe’s land reform. The lived experiences, situated meanings of disability in an agrarian and post-land reform context and field-based suggestions for disability inclusion were best gathered through detailed focus on specific study sites. Shamva was sampled randomly from the eight districts that constitute the province because all districts were potentially relevant to the thrust of the study, while specific study sites were selected purposively due to the existence of people with sensory and mobility disabilities in the farms and nearby CAs. The interpretivist paradigm, case study design, sampling and data collection methods within qualitative-dominant enquiry are topical in social science research literature (see Creswell and Creswell 2018; Neuman 2011).

Key informants including people with disabilities in the farms (9) and CAs (5), the district coordinator (DC) previously known as district administrator (DA) (1), village heads (2), lands officer (1), Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (Agritex) official (1) and disability policy specialists (2) were purposively selected based on predetermined relevance emanating from their expertise and position. The land beneficiaries without sensory and mobility disabilities (20) and representatives of the village development committees (VIDCOs) (2) were selected based on convenient availability. Any other available land beneficiary and VIDCO representative in the two farms were considered competent to represent their constituents. All the participants were aged 18 years and above in line with Zimbabwe’s legal age of majority. Including people with disabilities in the research process on issues that affect their lives is emphasized by other scholars (Blanck 2020; Eyraud and Taran 2021; Gilroy et al. 2018).

Data anchoring the article were gathered through key informant interviews (with people with disabilities in the farms – both initial land occupiers and heirs, neighboring CAs, disability policy specialists, the DC, village heads, the Agritex official and representatives of VIDCOs); focus group discussions (with land beneficiaries without disability followed up by indepth interviews); a questionnaire for the lands officer complemented by telephone interviews based on a flexible guide and in-depth interviews (with people with disabilities in CAs, and 10 of the 20 land beneficiaries without disability). The techniques attendant to qualitative-dominant research including participant observation, and informal interaction and questioning were employed. In addition to primary data, scholarly literature, key policy documents and secondary data sources were reviewed to set a context for the study and generating relevant insights. Ethical considerations were infused in data collection and reporting. Informed consent; inclusion; respect for diversity of opinion and background; avoidance of harm in its diversity (particularly identity, social and political); freedom to discontinue participation; and active provision of feedback were the main ethical primacies. However, dilemmas were experienced for example, noting discrimination of people with disabilities. The researcher could not remain detached therefore, advocated disability rights. Research literature (see Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004; Creswell 2012) delves into various aspects of data collection, ethical considerations and dilemmas, and how they should be addressed. The researcher exited the field on 20 October 2020 after two months in the field. The exit stage marked the end of fieldwork but not termination of the links with the various participants.

Data management, analysis and interpretation

Data management involved validation through member checking and follow-up interaction, data cleaning, collation, capturing and storage in both soft and hard copy formats. Ways of managing data are documented (see Antonio et al. 2020; Hess 2019). Data analysis, preliminary preparation of the article and refinement straddled the fieldwork and post-fieldwork stages. The contacts created and accrued during fieldwork were relied on where additional information was required. For example, telephone interviews with the DC, Agritex and lands officers after exit complemented the initial data collection.

The approach to thematic analysis and interpretation was informed primarily by the objectives of the study that is, the themes used for presenting and discussing the results were derived from the objectives. However, other pertinent themes that emerged in the field were incorporated. For example, the dire impact of contract farming, joint ventures and artisanal gold mining on people with disabilities were topical during fieldwork therefore were worth inclusion in the results and analysis. Basic statistical analysis catered for quantitative data gathered through the questionnaire, data from secondary sources or provided by the participants in numeric form. These are topical areas of social science research (Creswell and Creswell 2018). In the next section, the results of the study are presented.

Results

The results of the study are crystallized around the main research questions used to generate the corpus of data informing this article. These correspond to the themes of the ensuing discussion section.

In this area, did people with disabilities participate in informal occupation of large-scale commercial farms, how and to what extent?

A cross-section of the participants (people with disabilities, the DC, councillor, village heads and land beneficiaries) emphasized that informal and formal occupation of large-scale commercial farms (LSCFs) were the main forms of accessing land during the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP). They were unanimous that most former white-owned LSCFs in the district were initially informally occupied and formalized later. The spontaneous land occupations are locally known as jambanja or hondo yeminda (the ‘war’ by the black people of dispossessing whites of the land). They also narrated experiences of jambanja and that this was the main means of accessing land in and beyond the district prior to formalization. Although few, other LSCFs were formally occupied from the onset. They provided North Star Farm located near the study sites as an example. Both the informal and formal occupants were reported to have come mainly from the nearby CAs including Chakonda, Jiti and Madziwa, and towns especially Shamva and Bindura. The dominance of beneficiaries from CAs in all districts is documented (Moyo 2011b; Moyo et al. 2009; Chambati 2017).

In Shamva district, it was reported that men and male youth without disabilities spontaneously occupied the LSCFs under the leadership of war veterans. Movement within or across the district, in some cases involved long distances, harsh living conditions in ‘camps,’ low access to food and potable water, and violent interactions with white farmers and farm workers. Having no disability and being male were key considerations in being included in the land invasion teams. Other scholars focus on the characteristics of the invasion teams (Sadomba 2013; Masuko 2013). These factors were reported to having primarily militated against the broad and direct participation of people with sensory and mobility disabilities in informal land occupations. However, exceptions were acknowledged in the study sites. For example, 2 of the 5 people with disabilities selected from the CAs reported having sent their elder male children to participate in spontaneous land occupations therefore, consider themselves as having participated indirectly in the invasion of LSCFs. According to life histories of the 9 people with disabilities selected for the study, 2 (war veterans) with mild mobility impairments were at the forefront of the jambanja. Both people with disabilities in the farms and CAs linked the limited participation of people with disabilities in spontaneous land occupations to the condition of disability vis-à-vis the nature of the occupations. Interview excerpts sum the limited and indirect participation of people with disabilities in informal occupation of LSCFs:

In this area, except for war veterans without acute impairments, the generality of people with disabilities did not participate much and directly in the invasions. They did not volunteer to join the invaders or were not selected due to disability. It was a Chimurenga (war of liberation). Our condition of disability would have reduced the effectiveness of the teams (key informant interview with a person with disability at Golden Star farm).

According to the land beneficiaries, twenty years on, informal land occupations are erratic and less topical. They explained that most of the farms being targeted for informal occupation are those of allies of the late Mugabe who was ousted from presidency in 2017 and replaced by his deputy Emmerson Mnangagwa. Ordinary people with disabilities do not consider themselves as potential beneficiaries of the current farm invasions due to the wide exclusion of people with disabilities. A participant with visual impairment at Chiraramo farm emphasized this issue:

We are aware of farm invasions but it is unlikely that ordinary people with disabilities are involved. Orderly land acquisition and redistribution to people with disabilities and other excluded groups should be included in land reform policy.

Were people with disabilities prioritized in formal land allocations? What is their formal land access situation two decades after the FTLRP, and the associated evidence?

Accessing and owning land formally in the hitherto LSCFs were and are associated with the possession of offer letters and permits issued by the Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement (now the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement). All the participants reiterated that people were given an opportunity to apply for land. Informal land beneficiaries in the A1 and A2 schemes also had to be formalized through issuing of official land ownership documents (interview with the lands officer). Unlike in the A1, all applications for A2 plots had to be supported by possession of capital as proof that the land will be effectively utilized (formal and informal interactions with the DC, land officers and farmers). Formalization is topical in other scholarly contributions (Moyo 2011a,c; Moyo et al. 2009).

The DC and land officer reiterated that formal access to land was not determined by disability, gender and other social constructs, including political, ethnic or religious identity or affiliation. Yet, of the 9 people with mobility and sensory disabilities based in the two study sites, only 3 (war veterans) possess ownership documents. They reiterated that parents and guardians cede offer letters and permits to children with disability only if there are no alternative heirs. They referred to low possession of offer letters and permits, and land inheritance that often alienate those with disabilities. Voices from the fast-track farms and CAs revolved around the view that people with disabilities were not prioritized in formal land allocations. Furthermore, despite claims of fair distribution of land, the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement could not provide lucid records to show that people with disabilities were prioritized in formal allocation of land. Formal and informal interactions with a senior official from the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement revealed the plethora of land access hurdles experienced by ordinary people:

Except mainly war veterans, most people with disabilities did not participate in farm-level and district land committees. Applying for land was cumbersome and time consuming…especially in the early period, it was marked by confusion and strong involvement of local traditional leaders and ZANU PF structures. After getting support, you had to travel to the district lands office to get application forms and submit the application. In most cases, the process could only be completed after several trips, in the process expending a lot of time and money.

The DC also emphasized the constraints experienced by people with disabilities and offered suggestions:

Unlike people with disability in senior and junior civil service, defense forces and private sector, most of those with disabilities in the CAs could not travel frequently due to the condition of disability, and limited means for self-funding. It is a possibility that most people with disabilities may have been covertly excluded primarily because of their condition. In future land reforms, they should be considered along with women and youth.

Did self-perception and social construction of disability influence participation in informal occupation, and application for land? If any, are social constructions of disability in relation to land and agriculture enduring or receding two decades on?

A cross-section of the participants in and outside the study sites converged on the view that having a disability is an integral factor in determining access to and use of land. All the 14 people with disabilities raised pertinent aspects on individual and social construction of disability resulting in exclusion. Although not in a (post) land reform context, these themes are not new in literature (Munemo 2017, 2018, 2019; Burr and Dick 2017), justifying the importance of disability inclusion (Odeh et al. 2021; White, Johnson and Bornman 2021). First, nine indicated that they did not participate in both informal and formal land occupations because they did not perceive themselves as capable to execute agricultural activities due to the condition of disability, lack of capital, absence of disability-relevant assistive agricultural devices and other forms of agricultural support. Two reported having applied for land but did not follow up their applications. All emphasized that relatives, friends and other community members discouraged them from spontaneous land occupations and applying for land as indicated by this excerpt:

I do not have acute mobility impairment …. I can actively perform household and farm work but did not apply for agricultural land. Family members discouraged me from doing so. The sabhuku (village head) directly indicated during village gatherings that farming is not for people with disabilities. However, I know of people with worse forms of disability who were allocated land based on political connections or having participated in the liberation struggle (informal interaction with a person with disability at Chiraramo farm).

These narratives also anchored the arguments of disability specialist 1:

Disability has both biomedical and social dimensions. It is a powerful lens that people can use to judge a person. Disability is often latently or manifestly used to determine inclusion and exclusion of certain members of society unless one has powerful connections. Local and international organizations are improving the situation but the challenges are enduring because they are engrained in culture.

Disability specialist 2 corroborated disability specialist 1:

A national disability policy should focus on eliminating a culture of excluding people with disabilities along with ensuring equity in accessing land and other core resources, and opportunities. I have worked with people with disabilities for years, not all of them are interested in agriculture or can practice agriculture. Other economic empowerment strategies can be explored.

How is disability currently linked to land use, agricultural support, production and marketing of produce? How are related issues being addressed?

The following excerpt of an interview with a person with disability at Golden Star Farm, corroborated by the people with and without disabilities, shows the various constraints experienced by people with disabilities in relation to land use, production and agricultural support:

We are experiencing many land use and production constraints. The government is providing below minimum support to farmers through Presidential Inputs, Command Agriculture and Pfumvudza (conservation agriculture initiative) schemes. The economy is underperforming and affecting the majority of the farmers in various ways. The situation is worse for the already poor ordinary people with disabilities. We do not get any additional assistance on the basis of disability. The government expects us to sell crop produce to the Grain Marketing Board in local currency but we purchase agricultural inputs and basic commodities in United States dollars. We are experiencing loses and reproduction through agriculture is very difficult for people with disabilities. Despite being few, farmers with disabilities should access disability-relevant agricultural tools from the government and its partners, and well-wishers.

The contemporary experiences of people with disabilities in relation to land use, production and marketing outcomes forms the crux of exploring disability inclusion in an agrarian context. The three land beneficiaries with disabilities who formally own A1 plots reiterated the high prevalence of land use and production constraints. The main challenges are exorbitant prices of agricultural inputs; inability to hire additional labor and shortage of draught power. Scholarly focus on these constraints is also remarkable (Chipenda 2019, 2020b; Cliffe et al. 2013; Dekker and Kinsey 2011). They reported scanty agricultural support from the government, bilateral ties, children of the land beneficiaries and well-wishers; and low access to lucrative markets. Highly emphasized under agricultural support is non-provision of disability-specific agricultural tools despite increasing global calls for disability inclusion in all sectors of the economy.

In what ways is access to land a productive, redistributive, protective, reproductive and social compact tool for people with disabilities (and everyone else in this farm)?

Although in a different context, the redistributive, productive and protective functions of land are interrogated (Tekwa and Adesina 2018; Chibwana 2016; Chipenda 2019). People with disabilities in the farms and CAs, and other participants provided diverse ways in which land is associated with production, redistribution, protection, reproduction and social cohesion. Overall, they appropriately understood how these concepts are linked to land for agriculture and other uses. They explained how land is pivotal for agricultural production; generating and protecting wellbeing; reproducing and sustaining livelihoods and social cohesion especially if land is equitably redistributed and agricultural support fairly provided. A person with disability in Jiti CA raised these issues:

Land is important for agriculture, establishing a musha (home), security, nhaka (inheritance) and mining. Soils in most parts of this area are tired. The productive capacity of the land is declining. Land portions are over-sub divided. Limited access to fertile soils in the fast track farms for people with disabilities imply that they do not possess prime agricultural land. Food and income security is low. Most cannot produce and sell to get income for current and future needs.

In Chakonda CA, participants with disabilities brought to the fore how they were marginalized from the land reform hence, amplification of the redistribution, protection and reproduction challenges they are experiencing. They also emphasized land policy change:

Unlike colleagues who got land in the farms, my children do not have nhaka ine musoro (significant assets for inheritance) because I do not have land. I am extremely poor. Vakaremara vanogona kurima (people with disabilities who can practice farming) must have been prioritized pamutemo wekugova ivhu (in the land reform policy).

In this farm, what are the other contemporary issues pertaining to people with disabilities, land and agriculture? How are they being addressed?

The land beneficiaries (with or without disability), village heads, Agritex officer and representatives of VIDCOs raised current topical aspects. These include contract farming, joint ventures, pfumvudza (conservation agriculture), chikorokoza (artisanal gold mining) and farm community development. More attention was paid to their implication to people with disabilities. Contract farming and joint ventures were reported to be exploitative and most contractors requiring some form of collateral that most people with disabilities do not possess. They also explained that both pfumvudza and artisanal gold mining are labor-intensive posing challenges to most people with mobility disability. Pfumvudza farming was topical in discussions with the Agritex officer relating to disability:

Pfumvudza is conservation agriculture. Farmers ensure the efficient use of resources on a small portion of land in order to optimize its management, and yields under a crop production intensification approach. This agricultural practice is not new but has been re-emphasized in 2020. A farmer gets approximately 5 kilogramme of maize seed and 36 kilogramme of fertilizer. Those who have not adopted pfumvudza are not eligible for such support. Pertaining to people with disabilities, this method is not inclusive because it demands a lot of labour unless done by other household members or if they can hire additional labour.

The challenges experienced by people with disabilities in pfumvudza were emphasized by the village head for North Star farm:

Pfumvudza is a positive innovation and the government is providing support to farmers who prioritize this way of crop production. Yet, it is labour-intensive particularly at land preparation stage. Most people with disabilities in this area cannot hire labour because they do not have the means.

Discussion

Scholars may incorporate diverse themes when interrogating disability inclusion two decades after Zimbabwe’s fast-tracked land reform. While acknowledging that the selection is not exhaustive of all the aspects covered during fieldwork, six themes are discussed in this section. These are: informal access to land; accessing and owning land formally; self-perception and social construction of disability; land use, agricultural support and production; land as a redistributive, protective, reproductive and social compact resource; and disability issues in contract farming, joint ventures, pfumvudza and artisanal gold mining.

Informal access to land in LSCFs

Land anchors livelihoods, development and wellbeing. While not attempting to justify the informal occupation of LSCFs and the associated negative processes and outcomes (see Chamunogwa 2019; Zamchiya 2011), the demands for land among the generality of the black population especially peasants was justified. The willing seller–willing buyer provision of the Lancaster House Agreement hampered land acquisition and redistribution to the indigenous population (Masuko 2013; Sadomba 2013). Signaling land poverty, in 1998, early tendencies for spontaneous occupation of LSCFs were registered including the occupation of Igava Farm by villagers of Svosve CA; Nemanwa in Masvingo; Nyamandhlovu in Matabeleland and Nyamaguru in Manicaland.

The character of the spontaneous land occupations was not appropriate for people with mobility and visual impairment. Accordingly, the groups that were not considered fit to participate in the Jambanja – people with disabilities, women and children – lost the opportunity to occupy a portion of land in the FTLRP. The implication is that upon formalization, few people with disabilities were allocated land in their own right in both the A1 and A2 schemes. The level of corroboration among the participants in relation to the general bias against people with disabilities indicates that indeed this group lost out in informal occupation of LSCFs. However, this is a partial reality because not all groups with disabilities were affected in the same way. For example, exceptions could be noted on war-veterans, senior civil servants, the securocrats and business persons. Those who belong or are connected to the ruling elite and senior civil servants tapped on social capital. Other scholars corroborate the influence of elite-bias and uneven political connections in accessing land (Chamunogwa 2019; Zamchiya 2011). Participants with disabilities’ criticism of acquiring land the jambanja way is evidence of having been disadvantaged. They recommended orderly and inclusive land reform that is backed by policy. Such policy should be sensitive to disability and other social constructs including gender, youth and ethnoregionalism.

Accessing and owning land formally

Several crucial aspects come to the fore when interrogating formal allocation of land in relation to disability inclusion. Land beneficiaries who had to be formalized are those who had informally occupied the farms. The majority of the people with disabilities were not among the land invaders. The cumbersome character, frequent and often costly traveling to district land offices, and social capital involved in applying for land created winners and losers (inclusion and exclusion). Apathy increased among prospective land beneficiaries with disabilities and other groups without the requisite means and connections thereby losing land access opportunities.

Pertaining to formally accessing plots in the A2 scheme is proof of capital. This requirement further marginalized ordinary people with disabilities because most are poor and more vulnerable to economic shocks (Munemo 2018; Southern African Federation of the Disabled (SAFOD) 2019). The challenges relating to proof of capital as a precondition for accessing A2 plots are explored by other scholars (Moyo et al. 2009). Due to macroeconomic under-performance, most people in Zimbabwe are struggling to attain or sustain economic wellbeing through both formal and informal activities. The situation is dire for the majority of the people with disabilities given a longstanding barrage of direct and indirect marginalization from key economic sectors. The redistributive outcomes of the FTLRP in relation to the majority of the people with disabilities are therefore scanty. Diversity acknowledged, this also pertains to the majority of women (Bhatasara and Chiweshe 2017), youth (Chipenda 2019; Thebe 2018), aliens (Chipenda 2020a) and farm workers (Chambati 2017).

Self-perception and social construction of disability

How a person perceives himself or herself, builds self-esteem and unleashes his or her potential is dependent upon several factors including the individual and others in society (Polo and Puerta 2021; Wilt, Hirano and Morningstar 2021). In relation to both formal and informal access to land under the FTLRP, the physical dimension, individual perceptions and social constructs of disability were and continue to be hurdles in aspiring for and utilizing land. Access to agricultural land and other key resources may be limited by the extent of impairment and how the person perceives himself or herself. Exploration of social construction and its influence on accessing land revealed important insights particularly on latent and manifest marginalization.

The influence of family or household members and friends retarded the ambition to access land and practicing agriculture for most potential land beneficiaries with disabilities. The persistence of such negative influence two decades after the land reform is detrimental to the wellbeing of people with disabilities in agrarian contexts. In the A1 scheme, traditional leaders are pivotal opinion leaders and gate keepers whose influence in society touches on the political, economic and social aspects of the agrarian community. The culture of exclusion that is anchored on the institution of traditional leadership – village heads (masabhuku) and chiefs (madzimambo) is cause for policy concern in relation to some groups in society. For instance, non-prioritization of people with disabilities in submission of lists of deserving individuals to the DC (DA then) and District Land Committees (DLCs) led to alienation. Moreover, the failure of the government to put a regulation on the inclusion of people with disabilities, and the responsible Ministry’s disability-insensitivity reveal deliberate exclusion. Other scholars discuss how social construction influences life chances (see Burr and Dick 2017; Munemo 2019; Ocran 2019).

Land use, agricultural support and production

Utilizing agricultural land is essential for survival and prosperity yet in Shamva district, land use and production challenges are militating these benefits. This is also acknowledged in other study sites (Scoones et al. 2019 in Mvurwi; Chibwana 2016 in Kwekwe). The fast-track character of the land reform was a hurdle to pre-settlement investment while government-led post-settlement investment is hampered by poor macroeconomic performance, fiscal woes and limited support from the international community. The engagement with both local and international partners to reinvigorate financing of and investment in agriculture by the ‘new’ dispensation (Mnangagwa administration) is a positive development but is far from being sufficient implying the persistence of land use and production constraints (see also Chipenda 2020b; Mazwi 2020). The gravity of the constraints is higher for people with disabilities who do not possess a stable capital base or alternative sources of income including but not limited to a business, salary or remittances.

Five central arguments are notable. First is that disability is not inability. Not all people with disabilities are impaired to the extent that they cannot perform agricultural activities particularly if they are appropriately supported. Second, agricultural support from various stakeholders (government, private sector, non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations) is low. Third, failure to access assistive devices (walkers, clutches and white sticks) and disability-relevant agricultural tools impedes their functionality in agriculture. Fourth, limited participation in agricultural and other economic activities directly increases their vulnerability to poverty. Fifth, redistributing land is not the only strategy for empowering people with a double tragedy of disability and poverty. Disability issues and the importance of providing assistive technology crosscut the contributions of other scholars (see Manatsa 2015; Munemo 2017, 2018), although these scholars did not focus on disability and assistive technology in post-land reform agrarian contexts.

Land as a resource for redistribution, protection, reproduction and social compact

In a context where scholarship is increasingly converging on the redistributive, productive, protective, reproductive and social cohesion outcomes of Zimbabwe’s land reform (see Tekwa and Adesina 2018; Chipenda 2021; Chibwana 2016; Mazwi, Muchetu, and Chibwana 2017); and where scholars are advancing transformative social policy and developmental transformation as opposed to reliance on social assistance (Adesina, 2011, 2020, 2021; Hujo 2021; Mkandawire 2015; Yi 2015), limited ownership and use of land by people with disabilities also means restricted transformation of their wellbeing. Despite not being consciously acknowledged as such, Zimbabwe’s land reform should be understood as a social policy aimed at affecting and effecting wellbeing.

With full acknowledgement of diversity of livelihood sources and life situations, land is a productive resource. Farm community households also partly reproduce through the land (agriculture and mining). Broader interrogation of disability aspects in social reproduction would have been attained if more people with disabilities owned land. Despite this limitation, two aspects are important. Low ownership of land leads to low social reproduction among people with disabilities. Gender inequality and poverty may widen already existing disability problems. Furthermore, the allocated land portions are a guarantor of redistribution of produce and inheritance. It is part of the ‘estate’ that can be divided among children, spouses and relatives. However, these social policy functions are achievable to those who own and use land.

Based on the Shamva case, compared to conditional and unconditional social assistance currently being provided to people with disabilities and other ‘deserving’ groups (for example, Assisted Medical Treatment Orders, AMTO), land has more and sustainable protective outcomes. Elsewhere, the provision of social security disability benefits by the government is paramount (see Weaver 2021). Some NGOs are reported to be providing US$10 or less, or its equivalent in Zimbabwe dollars ($ZW) to an individual with disability for own and dependents’ upkeep. Assistance may also be provided by relatives and friends; churches and corporates as charity. Yet, such assistance measures are narrow, not guaranteed, inadequate, may create dependency and do not question and address the real causes of inequality, marginalization and poverty. Other scholars interrogated Zimbabwe’s social protection programs (see Chinyoka 2017; Dhemba 2013; Kaseke 2012, 2013; Mate 2017).

Addressing Zimbabwe’s land question by focusing merely on racial skewedness and the subsequent redistribution of land to a broad spectrum of beneficiaries overlooked other sub-questions including disability, gender and youth. The dissatisfaction of these groups with the FTLRP signifies a social cohesion shortfall hence, the participants’ emphasis that land audit and farm resizing should create opportunities for acquiring and reallocating land to people with disabilities and other hitherto excluded groups.

Disability issues in contract farming, joint ventures, pfumvudza and artisanal gold mining

Farming on contract (Mazwi, Chambati and Mudimu 2020), joint ventures (Mkodzongi and Lawrence 2019) and pfumvudza are emergent themes in Zimbabwe’s fast-track farms. However, current scholarship exhibits lacunae in terms of the disability inclusion component. While these initiatives are pivotal to agricultural development if appropriately managed, the inclusivity of the three initiatives in relation to disability is paltry. Qualifying for contract farming, joint ventures and pfumvudza is primarily anchored on possessing land for agricultural purposes which the majority of the people with disabilities do not in their own right. Land leasing to households without adequate portions can be pursued yet, given a situation of poverty reported by people with disabilities in the fast-track farms and CAs, and Zimbabwe’s economic meltdown, their ability to pay rent is limited.

Contractors’ prioritization of farmers with collateral security and the already better-off; and joint venture investors’ focus on medium to large-scale plots and focus on making profits than long-term farm investment and community development latently and manifestly exclude land beneficiaries with (and without disability). Pfumvudza farming’s high demand for physical effort in digging holes, gathering grass or leaf residues, and manure is not friendly to people with mobility and sensory impairments. However, other household members (children and spouses) may perform these tasks. Yet, the provision of agricultural inputs on the condition that a farmer adopts pfumvudza farming increases exclusion of those who cannot – the people with disabilities, chronically ill and aged.

Artisanal gold mining as a major off-farm activity for income diversification and survival strategy (see Mkodzongi 2013; Mkodzongi and Spiegel 2019) can only be significant to people with disabilities if they or other household members can use it to improve their livelihoods. The people with disabilities should bear the extra costs of disability and be agentive to find alternative livelihood sources. This is substantiated in other contexts (Gouskova 2020; Zachary et al. 2021). Overall, although a mono explanation should be avoided due to diversity, the implication is that the benefits of engaging in these initiatives are largely not realized by the majority of the people with disabilities.

Conclusion

The article explored disability inclusion and the related policy implications in a post-land reform agrarian context contingent on fresh field-based evidence drawn from two A1 study sites in Shamva district. Disability inclusion provided the indispensable conceptual underpinnings for interrogating the issues. While noting the limits of single district research and qualitative-dominant enquiry in presenting an overall picture of people with disabilities in relation to the fast track land reform, basing the paper on a small sample of people with disabilities, selected disabilities and the complexity of defining and categorizing (ordinary) people with disabilities, the article reveals diverse unresolved and enduring disability issues in Zimbabwe’s land reform.

Based on the reported lived experiences and situated meanings of disability inclusion, the majority of people with disabilities benefited least in both informal land occupations and formal land redistribution. Self-perception and social construction of disability militate against their aspirations and access to core national resources including land yet, not all do not have access to land. The majority of people with disabilities are least enjoying the productive, redistributive, protective and reproductive outcomes of owning and utilizing land through the fast track due to low access. They continue to be inequitably treated in relation to agricultural support. Overall, the majority of people with disabilities were marginalized from the fast track land reform as a major social policy and development program, and twenty years later, their situation is still gloomy.

The participants raised various policy changes that are intended to reduce disability inclusion lacunae in land reform and the associated benefits. Scholars and practitioners also proffered policy pathways in this regard. A functional disability policy should be part of the country’s governance machinery. Such a policy must not be established for populism and clientelist politics, and should create a framework for equitable access to core resources and opportunities. Inclusion should be an indispensable principle of Zimbabwe’s land (reform) policy and practice. For example, a quota system may be determined in land redistribution to cater for people with disabilities. The recently held land audit and promulgated farm resizing regulations are the best opportunities for acquiring and redistributing agricultural land to people with disabilities and other previously excluded groups. Pre- and post land reform support must be provided equitably by the various stakeholders. Given a longstanding history of poverty and exclusion, disability must be a core priority in inclusive land policy and delivery of agricultural support. Micro studies of disability inclusion should be elevated to the national level.

Considering people with disability in land reform is in essence recognition of social justice and promotion of their human rights. These should be the underpinnings of every public policy. Land reform must consciously be understood as transformative social policy in a development context. Approaching land reform this way is recognition of land as a productive, redistributive, protective, reproductive and social compact tool. The fast track’s potential to address the structural basis of poverty, inequality and marginalization are enhanced where it is considered as a transformative social policy with multiple functions. The inclusion of people with disabilities and recognizing their rights is and should increasingly be a prerequisite for evaluating development and governance in Zimbabwe and other countries.

Acknowledgements

I appreciate Professor Jimi Adesina for intellectual mentorship in interrogating land and agrarian reforms through Transformative Social Policy lens. Jimi Adesina is Professor and DSI/NRF SARChI Chair in Social Policy at the University of South Africa. I am also grateful to Dr. Emmanuel Munemo and Prof. Lincoln Hlatywayo for guidance on disability scholarship and policy. Emmanuel Munemo and Lincoln Hlatywayo are renowned academics in disability and special needs education at the Zimbabwe Open University.

Disclosure statement

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The author did not receive funding for research, preparation and publication of the article.

Data availability statement

Data supporting the results or analysis presented in the article are available but not currently linked to a hyperlink, DOI or other persistent identifier.