Gender land deals_ifpribbl


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Funding from SDC
  • Critics argue that investment in land is no longer about seeking out a comparative advantage in global markets, but about providing food and energy for wealthier countries using the land and water of the poor
  •  Boserup argued that when population density is low enough to allow it, land tends to be used intermittently, with heavy reliance on fallowing.  When rising population density curtails the use of fallowing , fields are moved towards annual cultivation.  Insufficiently fallowed, less fertile plots, covered with grass or bushes rather than forest, leads to expanded efforts at fertilizing, field preparation, weed control, and irrigation.  These changes often induce agricultural innovation, but increase marginal labour cost to the farmer as well
  • Men and women have different rights, roles and opportunities; they will be differently impacted by land deals and subsequent changes in tenure regime
  • Difficult to identify exact gender implications because land deals arise in a diverse array of contexts and take many forms Very little empirical evidence looking at this. Drawing on existing empirical evidence and case studies, also work on gender and commercialization and contract farming Discuss a number of prevalent trends & potential gender implications We identify issues and present evidence structured around a rough chronology of processes (phases) related to land deals, starting with the preexisting situation, through consultation, negotiation, contract development, implementation, compensation and subsequent changes in production
  •  women disadvantaged in both. Customary land access through male, Stat, in theory preferable but implementation is difficult, registration in name of male HH.  women may lack land rights but play essential roles in a wide range of agricultural activities—including planting, weeding or post-harvest processing—on the plots of husbands or other family members  what quantity of the harvest is kept for home consumption and what quantity is sold, so that the value of existing production—and its importance to local food security—is not underestimated.  who keeps the income from products sold
  • The national identity of the foreign investor may impact the form the land deal takes in important ways. For example, investors who think of men as farmers and women as dependents may not take into account the role of women in agriculture or make efforts to involve them in negotiations or subsequent contracts and employment.
  • Note that women are usually excluded from each type of consultation
  • Will it bypass the men and women using the land? Water-related infrastructure can be of either type:  domestic water supply systems are not directly productive,  irrigation investments : designed primarily to improve productivity of the agricultural investment. +Some irrigation systems close off places where people used to draw domestic water supplies, whereas others are designed as multiple use systems, providing for local drinking, bathing or doing laundry.
  •  “ gendering” of tasks whereby women are perceived as more “nimble” and assigned tasks such as pruning, spraying, thinning, tying and other tasks and are thereby excluded from activities that may be better paid, less strenuous or dangerous  However, other authors argue that in this “gendering” of tasks is actually beneficial for women who are increasingly hired in positions that would be otherwise occupied by men due to the perception that women are lower cost, more conscientious and more dexterous An alternative to a plantation system is a contract farming agreement, also known as an outgrower scheme, in which the farmer agrees to provide a given quantity and quality of a product within an agreed upon timeframe and the investor agrees either to purchase the harvest at a set price or to provide fixed percentage of the harvest to the farmer as rent.
  •  If farmers--particularly women farmers--are used to receiving proceeds from their land in food, the transition to a cash economy may be further disequilibriating In the case of land deals, this includes mechanization and the introduction of inputs such as new crops and varieties, inorganic fertilizer, and pesticides Water, fuel Protective gear, gendering of tasks, training
  •  Whether or not men and women benefit from these types of production depends very much upon whether they are hired as laborers and thus are able to increase their net income, providing insulation against potential fluctuations in food prices.  Exclusive production can be detrimental for local food security given that land and water will be diverted from food production to biofuel production while land available for livestock grazing may also be given over to biofuel production
  • Gender land deals_ifpribbl

    1. 1. The Gender Implications of Large-Scale Land Deals Julia Behrman, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Agnes Quisumbing IFPRI, World Bank, IFAD Gender & Agriculture Seminar December 17 th 2010
    2. 2. What is new about the current wave of large-scale land deals (‘land grabs’)? <ul><li>Magnitude </li></ul><ul><ul><li>46.6 mil ha in 203 projects in 81 countries (WB 2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Complex array of drivers including </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global population growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urbanization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rising oil and food prices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial crisis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Location </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uganda, Brazil, Cambodia, Sudan, Pakistan, Ukraine…. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Majority SSA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Area of origin investor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arab/Gulf countries: food security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>East/South Asia: food, fodder, fuel, raw materials </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industrialized countries: biofuels, raw materials, horticulture, speculation </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Large-scale land deals in theoretical perspective <ul><li>Inversion of Ester Boserup’s theory </li></ul><ul><li>In this case, exogenously induced pressures--rather than endogenous ones--lead to agricultural intensification and subsequent land tenure insecurity issues </li></ul><ul><li>Externally induced change  much higher pressure, and limits on induced institutional innovation </li></ul>
    4. 4. A literature has rapidly emerged to chart the dominant trends of large scale land deals… <ul><li>Cotula, Vermeulen, Leonard, and Keeley, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>FAO, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Smaller, Carin and Mann, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Ullenberg, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>von Braun and Meinzen-Dick, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Cotula, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>World Bank, 2010 </li></ul>
    5. 5. … but where is discussion of gender in the debate?
    6. 6. Why Gender Matters <ul><li>Women are essential to planting, weeding, harvesting, processing, marketing, food preparation etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Productivity constraints already exist due to lack of key assets and inputs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Households do not act in a unitary manner when allocating food and non food resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women play a key role in improving household food security and nutrition </li></ul></ul><ul><li> Large scale land deals that take resources away from women can reduce the welfare of women and their families (even if there are income gains to men). Including attention to gender is not only a matter of social equity, but is also central to poverty reduction. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Phases of a land deal through a gender lens Graphic Credit: CIP Papa Andina
    8. 8. Phases of a land deal: pre-existing situation <ul><li>What is the existing land tenure system? </li></ul><ul><li>Customary vs. Statuary </li></ul><ul><li>Who uses the land in question? </li></ul><ul><li>Going beyond ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Non ‘agricultural’ uses: i.e. Grazing, Firewood, Water, Medicinal plants </li></ul><ul><li>Private vs. Common property </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural significance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Local levels of Human Capital </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Who will benefit from new employment opportunities? </li></ul>
    9. 9. Phases of a land deal: consultation & negotiation <ul><li>How is land acquired? </li></ul><ul><li>Legal appropriation of customary land </li></ul><ul><li>Joint Ventures (i.e. contract farming) </li></ul><ul><li>Legal sale of privately held land </li></ul><ul><li>Illegally </li></ul><ul><li>Who are the investors? What is their capacity and track record? </li></ul><ul><li>Origin of investor and interest </li></ul><ul><li>State, sovereign wealth funds, international private sector with state support, private sector without state, domestic investors joint venture, domestic investors alone </li></ul>
    10. 10. Phases of a land deal: consultation & negotiation <ul><li>Who is consulted about the sale/lease of the land? </li></ul><ul><li>National governments (state owned/customary land) </li></ul><ul><li>Local elite and/or chiefs </li></ul><ul><li>Local farmer’s associations or communes (privately titled) </li></ul><ul><li>Local small-medium scale landowners (privately titled land) </li></ul><ul><li>How much information is made available to local populations? </li></ul><ul><li>Are men and women both represented in consultations and negotiations? </li></ul><ul><li>Is information accurate? </li></ul>
    11. 11. Stages of a land deal: contracts & compensation <ul><li>Types of contracts </li></ul><ul><li>Sale; Concession; Production Sharing; Joint Ventures </li></ul><ul><li>Who is compensated for the sale/lease of the land? </li></ul><ul><li>Duration of contract </li></ul><ul><li>Short (15-20 years); long (50-99 years) </li></ul><ul><li>Investments in public goods </li></ul><ul><li>Non agricultural infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Schools, hospitals, clinics etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Water related infrastructure </li></ul>
    12. 12. Stages of a land deal: contracts & compensation <ul><li>Investments in local labor—plantation systems </li></ul><ul><li>Are local men and women equally hired? </li></ul><ul><li>Do local men and women work in unskilled or managerial positions? Opportunities for advancement? </li></ul><ul><li>Gender division in task allocation, hours worked, wages earned? </li></ul><ul><li>Childcare? </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of mechanization? </li></ul><ul><li>Investments in local labor—contract farming </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed evidence on gender implications: increasing demand for women’s paid labor vs. appropriation of women’s crops as they increase in value </li></ul><ul><li>Key questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who is the contract made with? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is there any deliberate targeting of participants or crops? </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Phases of a land deal: implementation & changes in production structure <ul><li>Eviction and Resettlement </li></ul><ul><li>Are local women and men evicted, resettled or allowed to stay on land? </li></ul><ul><li>Do local women and men benefit from new employment opportunities, extension services and land rights that may accompany resettlement? </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of New Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Application outside of the project? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there concurrent increases in demand for labor? </li></ul><ul><li>Are technologies targeted to women and men farmers, workers? </li></ul><ul><li>Who shoulders environmental and health impacts? </li></ul>
    14. 14. Phases of a land deal: implementation & changes in production structure <ul><li>Crop Choice & Export </li></ul><ul><li>Staple crops vs. biofuels </li></ul><ul><li>Sold into local markets vs. exclusive export </li></ul><ul><li>Will local women and men be impacted by losses in biodiversity? </li></ul>
    15. 15. Phases of land a land deal: enforceability, transparency monitoring & evaluation <ul><li>Are there mechanisms in place to ensure investors follow through on promises to abide by national legislation, invest in infrastructure and work with local populations? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What recourse do local people have if investors don’t follow through? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for non governmental enforcement via the media, famers organizations, NGOs, donors, Intl. Orgs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is there a M&E system in place? </li></ul><ul><li>Is information about the land deal made available to local men and women? </li></ul>
    16. 16. Case Study: West Kalimantan Indonesia (Julia & White 2010) <ul><li>Oil palm production—corporate plantations & contract farming </li></ul><ul><li>Notable gender impacts include : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solely male leaders relied on to sign up farmers, resolve conflict, disseminate information; only men in community consultations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Women lack education for high skilled positions  no fixed contracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gendering of tasks  spraying, land clearance, fertilizer application </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some increase in income for women from (illegal) palm seed oil collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss in biodiversity impacts women’s income generation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smallholder registration of land in name of male HH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increases in commercial ‘sex cafes’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enforcement problems </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Conclusions <ul><li>Whether or not women and men will benefit from land deals depends in part on the rights and responsibilities women and men have prior to the land deal and in part on how the implementation of the land deal will build upon, improve or distort these roles and responsibilities. </li></ul>