Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from CGIAR(20)

Advertisement

Women's tenure security on collective lands - implications for measurement and policy

  1. Women’s Tenure Security Collective Lands On Ruth Meinzen-Dick (IFPRI); Cheryl Doss (University of Oxford); Fiona Flintan (ILRI); Anne Larson (CIFOR); Iliana Monteroso (CIFOR); Rachael Knight (Rachael Knight Consulting) Implications for Measurement and Policy
  2. • Low excludability, high subtractability • Heterogeneous resources over space and time • Multiple, overlapping uses • Gender differences in resource uses, dependence, priorities Key features of common pool resources (e.g. forests, pastures, fisheries)
  3. Mosaics of land use and tenure types Photo credit: CIFOR
  4. Key features of collective tenure • Mosaics of tenure types • Communal tenure (land held collectively, e.g. by lineage, but allocated for individual use and management) • Common property (collectively used and managed; may be “owned” by the state) • Multiple, overlapping users, claims • “Secondary” rights are important • Need for collective • To manage resources • Mutual assistance • Collective identity • Land rights socially embedded • Territorial approach: • Land rights and Governance
  5. Tenure security • Tenure security: • Completeness of the bundles of rights • Access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, alienation • Focus on “ownership” • Robustness/resilience (can withstand challenges, e.g. land grabs) • Duration (long horizon) • Institutional focus: state
  6. Women’s Tenure Security • Individual level—not just FHH • Tenure security: • Completeness of the bundle of rights (but often only women’s “access”, not “rights”) • Robustness/resilience • Duration (long horizon, not changed by change in marital status) • Bundles of rights (use, fructus, control, inheritance) • Institutional focus: state and (extended) family, clan • Degree of individual vs joint rights
  7. Women’s Tenure Security in Collective Tenure • Group and Individual level • Tenure security: • Importance of individual “sticks in the bundle” of rights, not completeness of the bundle of rights (but often group “rights” not recognized) • Robustness/resilience (can withstand challenges, e.g. land grabs affecting whole community) • Duration (long horizon, not changed by change in marital status, may vary over seasons or years; locally considered in generations) • Institutional focus: state agencies (e.g. forest agency) and (extended) family, clan and community • Nested security/insecurity: • Strength of collective’s rights • Strength of individual’s rights and voice in the collective
  8. Rethinking “bundle of rights” as “web of interests”Photo credit: CIFOR
  9. Private property Access Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation Collective tenure Access Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation Loss of access rights for all others Exclusion rights for some = Web of interests to accommodate multiple users Importance of fructis rights— who benefits? Photo credit: CIFOR “Bundles of Rights”
  10. Land rights embedded in social relations • Applies to all land rights, but especially apparent for collective tenure • Who “holds” the land rights? • Where are women in those social relations over land? • Importance of governance arrangements Photo credit: Fiona Flintan
  11. Risks of privatization, individualization Dispossession of whole groups Fragmentation of resources Women “fall between two stools”
  12. Securing women’s collective tenure • Securing rights of the collective to the resource • Ensuring effective governance of the collective resource • Redressing discriminatory ‘custom’ • Ensuring women’s voice in collective governance • Ensuring complementary resources to use collective rights effectively • Opportunities for women to help secure collective rights, thereby also raising their status in the community Photo credit: Rachael Knight
  13. Women’s land rights Collective tenure Photo credit: Landesa Photo credit: CIFOR
  14. Ruth Meinzen-Dick, IFPRI Cheryl Doss, University of Oxford Fiona Flintan, ILRI Anne Larson, CIFOR Iliana Monteroso, CIFOR Rachael Knight, Rachael Knight Consulting
  15. gender.cgiar.org We would like to acknowledge all CGIAR Research Programs and Centers for supporting the participation of their gender scientists to the Seeds of Change conference. Photo: Neil Palmer/IWMI

Editor's Notes

  1. This draws on Land Tenure Center’s generic work on tenure security and Resource Equity’s work on women’s land rights Individual level—not just comparing MHH vs FHH Tenure security: Robustness/resilience (can withstand challenges, e.g. land grabs) Duration (long horizon, not changed by change in marital status) Assurance/enforceability (can present claim, be heard) Cultural and legal legitimacy (recognized by law, custom, community, family) Exercisability (informed of rights, understand meaning and how to document) Beyond “ownership”—actual bundles of rights (use, fructus, control) But not just “access” Often depends on how acquired, social categories of land Ancestral vs Purchased, Dowry Degree of individual vs joint rights However, this data is rarely available in the literature
  2. This draws on Land Tenure Center’s generic work on tenure security and Resource Equity’s work on women’s land rights Individual level—not just comparing MHH vs FHH Tenure security: Robustness/resilience (can withstand challenges, e.g. land grabs) Duration (long horizon, not changed by change in marital status) Assurance/enforceability (can present claim, be heard) Cultural and legal legitimacy (recognized by law, custom, community, family) Exercisability (informed of rights, understand meaning and how to document) Beyond “ownership”—actual bundles of rights (use, fructus, control) But not just “access” Often depends on how acquired, social categories of land Ancestral vs Purchased, Dowry Degree of individual vs joint rights However, this data is rarely available in the literature
  3. This draws on Land Tenure Center’s generic work on tenure security and Resource Equity’s work on women’s land rights Individual level—not just comparing MHH vs FHH Tenure security: Robustness/resilience (can withstand challenges, e.g. land grabs) Duration (long horizon, not changed by change in marital status) Assurance/enforceability (can present claim, be heard) Cultural and legal legitimacy (recognized by law, custom, community, family) Exercisability (informed of rights, understand meaning and how to document) Beyond “ownership”—actual bundles of rights (use, fructus, control) But not just “access” Often depends on how acquired, social categories of land Ancestral vs Purchased, Dowry Degree of individual vs joint rights However, this data is rarely available in the literature
  4. Community land protection efforts that do not include mechanisms to improve local governance: May at best be described as a lost opportunity to effect positive community change. May at worst make land dealings more unjust! Dangerous to give communities documentation of their land without creating accountability for leaders and strengthening governance. Positively, process can lead to: Protections for women and minority groups’ rights Increased downward accountability of leaders Greater democratic participation by community members in land and natural resources management decisions Increased conservation and sustainable natural resources management Strong foundations that support future community prosperity
  5. Don’t get me wrong: I am a big advocate for women having land rights, and certificates in their names in contexts where individual or household land rights are appropriate, e.g. for housing, some agriculture. But not at the expense of taking them out of families or communities that provide so much other security, resources, tangible and intangible. It generally doesn’t ensure their security, especially where the state is a remote presence, and any edicts have to be enacted within the social field of the family and community. Rather, look for ways to reinforce these in a positive way
Advertisement