The assessment of the vulnerability to drought hazards in smallholder farming systems dependent on rain-fed agriculture has recently gained global popularity, given the need to identify and prioritize climate hotspots for climate adaptation. Over the past decade, numerous studies have focused on vulnerability assessments with respect to drought and other meteorological hazards. Nonetheless, less research has focused on applying common measurement frameworks to compare vulnerability in different communities and the sources of such vulnerability. Yet, the crucial question remains: who is more vulnerable and what contributes to this vulnerability? This article is a case study for assessing the vulnerability to drought of smallholder farmers in two wards in Chivi district, Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. This study is timely, as climate change is increasingly affecting populations dependent on rainfed agriculture. This assessment has been conducted by calculating the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) and Livelihood Vulnerability Index of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (LVI-IPCC). This empirical study used data from 258 households from the two wards and triangulated it through Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions. To calculate the LVI, twenty-six subcomponents made up of seven major components, including socio-demographic variables; livelihood strategies; social capital; access to food, health, and water; and exposure to drought, were considered. To calculate the LVI-IPCC, we combined the three contributing factors of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity). Our results indicate that the LVI forward 14 is statistically higher than for ward 19 (F = 21.960; p ≤ 0.01) due to high exposure to drought, food insecurity, and compromised social networks. Concerning the LVI-IPCC, ward 14 was significantly more vulnerable to the impacts of drought than ward 19 (F = 7.718; p ≤ 0.01). Thus, reducing exposure to drought through early warning systems, building diversified agricultural systems, and social networks are of high priority to reduce the vulnerability of the farmers.

Recently, environmental constitutionalism has emerged as a powerful tool across the globe to address environmental challenges that fall beyond the grasp of other legal constructs. Environmental constitutionalism merges governmental structures and the modalities of individual rights in furtherance of an individual or collective norm and policy. In Zimbabwe, the advent of the new constitutional dispensation of 2013 has seen an increase in environmental litigation that demonstrates the increasing drive by the courts to embrace and enforce its constitutional environmental rights for environmental protection and sustainability. Before the constitutional amendment, environmental rights were only provided in the Environmental Management Act, without a constitutional guarantee. As such, there was limited litigation and no political will to assist litigants in asserting their environmental rights. The political situation had deteriorated considerably together with a decline in the rule of law and good governance, with serious adverse effects on the environment. Today, the growing jurisprudence on constitutional environmental rights is a testament to the embracing, by the courts, of environmental constitutionalism, which is a move towards promoting environmental sustainability. This chapter discusses the emergence of environmental constitutionalism in Zimbabwe. Specifically, this discussion takes place in the context of the prevailing socioeconomic-politico climate in the country. Increasingly, the courts are using this tool to adjudicate competing economic and environmental interests – thereby promoting environmental sustainability. Against this backdrop, the chapter highlights the core elements of environmental constitutionalism as a vehicle for environmental sustainability in the Zimbabwean context, paying particular attention to selected judicial decisions and their interpretation of constitutional environmental rights. The chapter establishes that despite the growing jurisprudence on environmental constitutionalism, the courts are yet to provide an interpretation and application of Zimbabwe’s constitutional ideal of ecologically sustainable development. The chapter concludes by considering the opportunities for Zimbabwean courts to promote this constitutional ideal. <!----> <!----> <!----> <!---->