Analyzing social differentiation within collective tenure regimes: Forest tenure reforms and women’s rights
•
1 like•986 views
Presented by Iliana Monterroso, from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), at the XVI Biennial IASC Conference ‘Practicing the commons: self-governance, cooperation, and institutional change’, in Utrecht, the Netherlands, on July 11, 2017.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Analyzing social differentiation within collective tenure regimes: Forest tenure reforms and women’s rights
Similar to Analyzing social differentiation within collective tenure regimes: Forest tenure reforms and women’s rights (20)
More from CIFOR-ICRAF
More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Analyzing social differentiation within collective tenure regimes: Forest tenure reforms and women’s rights
- 1. Forest tenure reforms and women rights Iliana Monterroso, Anne Larson, Esther Mwangi, Nining Liswanti, Tuti Herawati, Baruani Mshale, Mani Ram Banjade and Julia Quaedvlieg IASC Conference, July 2017 Analyzing social differentiation within collective tenure regimes:
- 2. Outline 1. Introduction to the research 2. Countries of study, gender in law 3. Collective tenure regimes, types of reform 4. Gender in reform design/implementation 5. Social differentiation and forest dependence 6. Who benefits from reforms: o Involvement in forest management o Participation in Decision Making o Perception on rules 7. Reflections and conclusions
- 3. Introduction (2) • Are women being taken into account in reform processes (design/implementation)? • What are the outcomes of reform for women? (e.g. forest management, rules) Gender and other potential sources of social differentiation (poor / non-poor) Reform processes, collective tenure and gender
- 4. Gender and collective tenure: Increasing attention from practitioners
- 6. Legal provisions considering gender in forest tenure reforms Constitutional level: Gender justice and/or equity considerations are included as principles in national constitution (3 countries) International: • UNDRIP – ratified by the 3 countries • VGGTs – adopted by the 3 countries • CEDAW – ratified by Peru and Uganda • ILO 169 – ratified by Peru National: • Uganda forest policy and law - gender equity for tenure security and participation; • Peru forest and regional government laws - equity and social inclusion; • Indonesia consultative assembly decree – gender justice BUT in all cases: o Lack specific provisions to put in practice o Women have low participation in the drafting of reforms o Men dominate the formalization/implementation processes Sources: Country studies by Naluwiro, Safitri, Soria
- 7. Regime and Reform Types Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys), Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696) Tenure regimes Reform Types Uganda Peru Indonesia # of sites State land designated to/use by communities 1. Collaborative Forest Management 6. HKM Community forests 7. HTR Community plantations 11 State land used by companies 8. Kemitraan 9. Plasma 4 Land owned by communities 2. Community forestry 4. Native communities titled 5. Riverine communities titled 10. Hutan adat 22 Owned by individuals 3. Private forest owners association 4 Unrecognized customary lands Customary lands • Native communities not titled • Riverine communities not titled • Adat / Customary lands 13 Total 16 22 17 54 29% 44% 25% 83% 24% 23% 30% 24% 17%
- 8. Who counts as a member of the collective? (Who represents the collective?) Depends on national law & policy, type of reform or the customary system, or all of the above Definition of membership status: who is a villager? who can be a user group member? and specifically in the case of gender – is the member, or household representative, the male hh head? Who benefits? Who is the subject of reform?
- 9. Forest dependence Uganda: mainly subsistence (firewood, poles and timber) Peru and Indonesia: more diversified (more than 10 products) including subsistence but also extraction of commercial products Extraction of commercially valuable forest products (41% across countries) In Indonesia (45%); Peru (62%); Uganda (15%) Gender and extraction • Both men and women have equal rights to extract resources • Men dominate decisions around forest resources. Results 1. Social differentiation and Forest Dependence Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696)
- 10. Results 1. Gender differentiation and Forest Uses (b) WOMEN MEN
- 11. Results 2. Are reforms promoting involvement in Forest Management activities? Indonesia and Peru: Reforms favor forest management In Indonesia and Uganda people who are not consider poor are the ones who participate more in management activities. Indonesia and Uganda: Membership in a local forestry-related organization favors positive perception of tenure security and livelihood improvement; adoption of forest technologies and practices In Peru: membership influences positive perception on livelihood improvement and improved forest conditions 82% 57% 17% 38% 87% 61% 13% 39% 47% 54% 53% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No reform Reform No reform Reform Not involved Involved indonesia peru uganda Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696)
- 12. Results 3. Are reforms favoring changes in forest management practices? • In Peru and Uganda women adopt more technologies and practices for protecting, maintaining and improving the forest • BUT forest management related programs involve more men than women Since joining the scheme I have adopted different technologies and practices for protecting, maintaining and improving the forest? Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696) 46% 60% 20% 25% 72% 75% 9% 10% 35% 9% 9% 2% 19% 14% 18% 18% 1% 26% 16% 27% 48% 18% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Men Women Men Women Men Women Indonesia Peru Uganda No opinion Disagree Neutral Agree
- 13. Results 4. Are reforms promoting participation in decision making about forest management? • Participation in decisions is low across countries, for both men and women • Across countries women lack platforms for participating When existing, these are new and rarely related to forests •Peru and Indonesia: involvement in forest management/and participation in meetings influences perception on positive change in livelihoods and forest conditions - for all 3 countries influences adoption of forest technologies and practices. 15% 3% 48% 33% 18% 16%85% 91% 52% 67% 23% 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Men Women Men Women Men Women Indonesia Peru Uganda Participated in making rules about forest harvesting No opinion Yes No Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696)
- 14. Results 5. Perception on rules: men vs. women (a) 13% 9% 17% 25% 22% 15% 62% 60% 64% 43% 69% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Men Women Men Women Men Women Indonesia Peru Uganda Are rules about forest use and access clear? Have no opinion Disagree Neutral Agree 17% 10% 20% 37% 25% 12% 56% 55% 54% 38% 60% 67% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Men Women Men Women Men Women Indonesia Peru Uganda Are rules about forest use and access fair? Have no opinion Disagree Neutral Agree Source: Preliminary survey results • Membership and participation in governance is a precondition to ensure women benefit from tenure reforms. Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696)
- 15. Results 6. Perception on rules: poor vs. non-poor(b) 8% 18% 21% 28% 15% 20% 61% 60% 56% 32% 75% 64% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No poor Poor No poor Poor No poor Poor Indonesia Peru Uganda Are rules about forest resource use and access clear? Have no opinion Disagree Neutral Agree 17% 14% 11% 25% 8% 12% 11% 20% 28% 38% 18% 18% 14% 15% 14% 9% 6% 10% 57% 51% 47% 29% 69% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No poor Poor No poor Poor No poor Poor Indonesia Peru Uganda Are rules about forest resource access and use fair? Have no opinion Disagree Neutral AgreeSource: Preliminary survey results Sample: 2707 observations (Intra-household surveys) Indonesia (1024), Peru (988) and Uganda (696)
- 16. • State interventions in reform design/implementation risk introducing, formalizing and/or perpetuating internal social differentiation. • Specific provisions to account women concerns and needs around forest resources/lands within collectives: • Review institutional mechanisms introduced/formalized by reform – Understanding the collective: Women may not count as “members”, they may not be convened, they may not have the information to participate (Reform design) • Local regulations and arrangements during the formalization of customary systems (Reform design) • Special provisions should address clearly how women should be accounted for to participate effectively during convening processes and all the different steps of implementation (Reform implementation) Conclusions (1)
- 17. • Low participation of women in the formulation of access and use rules – Implications on how women/men benefit from reform outcomes. • While women participate in forest management activities – they are poorly represented in decision-making and leadership positions, specially when it comes to decisions around forests (Reform outcomes) • Results clearly demonstrate differences (we still need to explore causes, disaggregate data by reform types, etc.) • Reforms cannot pretend to be “neutral” unless they intend to reinforce differentiation • The state has an obligation to enforce its own laws and the international conventions it has signed Conclusions (2)
Editor's Notes
- Largely understudied is the intersection between gender and collective tenure security reforms. Right devolution processes (around land and forests) have been ongoing for more than 30 years now, work around gender in land tenure reforms is increasing (mainly under the lenses of individual tenure and women rights), however the intersection between gender, collective tenure regimes – what these means for tenure security and outcomes of reform is relatively new.
- The research as a whole looked at the history, context and legal provisions of tenure reforms; at implementation of reforms, specifically interviewing implementers across the process of reform, as well as leading discussion forums through Participatory Prospective Analysis; and finally, we looked at outcomes of reform through focus groups and intra-hh surveys in 54 villages. I am going to focus mainly gender, and after presenting very briefly the legal context, I am going to report on some preliminary results from the intra-hh surveys. • Has the devolution of rights to the collective affected men and women and other vulnerable groups differently? • Are the rights redistributed to men and women adequate to ensure benefits, livelihoods, improved management regimes? • How has the gender dimension been approached in reform design and implementation? • Has the devolution of rights to the collective affected men and women and other vulnerable groups differently? • Are the rights redistributed to men and women adequate to ensure benefits, livelihoods, improved management regimes?
- (E.g. Gender justice in the Decree of People's Consultative Assembly IX/2001 in Indonesia) a(e.g. Gender equity in the case of the Forest Law No. 29763 for Peru). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) VGGT Vol Guidelines on the Responsible Gov of Tenure In Peru – the Forest Law and the Law of regional governments equity and social inclusion were adopted important principles but there are no specific guidelines/directives on how to mainstream these in implementation processes.
- IN total we have 54 villages across three countries. Percent is based on number of hh under types of reform. The results I will present today refer mainly to the comparison of women and men, poor and non-poor. Roughly half women and men in Peru and Indonesia, more women in Uganda. Reforms analyzed varied according to the nature of reforms the bundle of rights devolved/transferred variety of institutional arrangements employed by the estate to recognize/formalize rights to forest dependent people While most of reforms studied in Uganda/Indonesia stem mostly from changes in Forests/Environmental legislation (Uganda protected areas co-management schemes – Indonesia: social forestry schemes) RECOGNITION OF MANAGEMENT/USE RIGHTS TO FOREST RESOURCES THROUGH PERMITS/AUTHORIZATIONS – In Peru they come from agrarian legislations (recognition of land) RECOGNITION OF COMMUNAL LANDS – TITLES – CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING IN INDONESIA – SLOW IMPLEMENTATION Timeframe is also different, while reforms in Peru date back changes in legislation from 1970s – around agrarian reform – indigenous peoples movement – territorial claims In Uganda and Indonesia reforms are more recent 1990s – descentralization of the forest sector – improve livelihoods CUSTOMARY At the local level, despite formalization of tenure rights, customary arrangements (including communal by-laws) continue to be very important institutional arrangements Uganda Customary land tenure recognized in constitution (1995) – but not documented Uganda (Collaborative Forest Management; Community Forestry): reforms tied to conservation interests, population growth and increasing forest deforestation and degradation. Recent reform process (after 1995). Customary land tenure recognized in constitution (1995) – but not documented Legal entry point: forests and conservation legislation; constitutional recognition of customary lands. Indonesia (Community Forests; Community plantations; partnership arrangements; customary forests): Social mobilization to access forests. Recent reform process (after 1999; 2013). Recent recognition of customary communities land rights after Constitutional Court Ruling (2012) (50-70 million people) Legal entry point: Forest legislation; constitutional recognition of customary peoples. Peru (native/peasant indigenous communal lands): agrarian development/Colonization in the Amazon and social mobilization. (Earlier reform process: 1974-1978). Legal entry point: Land and forests legislation. Constitutional recognition of native communities.
- Whose responsibility is it to assure inclusion? Is the state obligated to protect or support the rights of certain people (indigenous, women, poor…)? So is it the state or entity implementing the reform, or the collective, or both? Who decides? Uganda: user groups and others are partial community, even in the customary recognition – men and women Indonesia: village forest (HD) is whole village, other social forestry are partial – hh heads only Peru: all village – internal rules based on who votes/participates in decision making and governance – titling in 3 villages changed the status of women to full community members women are less informed of reform implementation and outcomes, this has important implications in terms of the realization of rights. (Who is the collective subject recognized by reform? Results/In Peru: Community; in Uganda and Indonesia: Groups of forest users (families/households)- How men and women can become part of this collective? Membership status (RRI) – This will influence how men and women benefit from implemented reforms
- Men are better educated; have more land (Gender; Education level; land distribution; economic situation) – could also be ethnicity, age There is a statistically significant difference between the mean of years of school completed by males and females in all three countries. Regarding access to land, on average a family manages plots of 2.5 hectares in Indonesia, 3.7 hectares in Peru and 3.6 hectares in Uganda. Land access varies across the tenure regimes - more significant differences in: Indonesia - the land communities can use is larger in state land used by companies (partnerships) in comparison to the other regimes analyzed in Indonesia (3 ha vs. 2.15 ha state land designated for communities which is the lowest) Peru - land size doubles for recognized communal lands vs. unrecognized communal lands (4 vs. 2). Men owned almost 50% more land than women - according to the graph check Uganda - land size owned by individuals doubles the land owned by communities (5.9 vs. 1.84 ha) which is the lowest followed by customary lands 2.5 ha (country Mean is 3.6ha) If we consider people’s economic situation and access to land, in Uganda and Peru there is a statistically significant difference between poor households and no poor. In Peru and Uganda (this includes also the lands owned by individuals - probably needs clarification) households where land reforms have been implemented own more land than in villages were no reform has taken place (1.7) - probably related to the treatment when doing the statistical analysis Internal Social differentiation Differences between men and women surveyed in regards to: education (men have 1.8 more years) access to land (men have 1.2 more hectares) This differentiation also applies for poor people 1.8 fewer education years 2.2 less hectares (more significant difference than for women)
- EXTRACTION IS ALSO LINKED TO EXISTING RULES - IN UGANDA SUCH RULES ARE PERCEIVED AS MORE RESTRICTIVE Is forest dependence another source of social differentiation within and across sites? households located in villages where a reform has been implemented are more likely to say that product extraction rules are more restrictive now; the size of the effect is not small (i.e. the predicted probability increases by 20% and 34% percentage points in Indonesia and Peru No difference across men and women in our statistical analysis – but we don’t have information on benefit distribution? Rules around extraction? Women tend to think that rules have become more restrictive. Important differences across regimes more relevant in Indonesia: Indonesia: 70% of the households in State land vs. 11% in unrecognized customary lands - 44% in State lands used by companies. Uganda: 30% of the households in unrecognized customary lands vs. 5% and 7% in land owned by communities and land owned by individuals respectively.
- 36% of respondents involved in forest management – 52% respondents indicate that attend meetings about forest use and management Indonesia and Uganda – this is linked to the type of reform – Forest related more in Uganda Differences across countries: These results need to be interpreted in line with the goal of these reforms – Uganda and Indonesia reforms recognize explicitly access rights to forest use/management Why in Peru while community people attend meetings around fores use and management they are not members of a local forestry related organization: They hold communal assemblies meetings on forests use/management ?? I need to review this¡¡¡ In Indonesia and Uganda involvement in forest management activities makes people more secured about their rights. In Indonesia being a member of forest-related organization also influences security. In Peru and Indonesia, involvement in forest maangement/and participation in meetings also influences perception on positive change in livelihoods and forest conditions - for all 3 countries influences adoption of forest technologies and practices. Correlation? between the ability to benefit directly from the forest and an improved perception of tenure security?? rights protected and enforced In Indonesia and Peru when there is a reform implemented more people are involved in new forest management activities, the opposite happens in Uganda (i.e. no reform implies more participation) Participation in forest management increases the probability for perceiving rules to be clear well -known and fair. This is relevant for Indonesia and Peru. In Indonesia and Uganda. Involvement in forest management activity makes people more secured about their rights. Indonesia and Uganda: Membership in a local forestry-related organization increases the likelihood of people stating that their rights will be protected and enforced and that their income and livelihoods have improved.
- NOT A LOT OF CHANGES IN FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – IN COUNTRIES THAT FOCUS ON FOREST RELATED REFORMS WHY? RECENT REFORMS? APPROACH TO FOREST MANAGEMENT? Only 22% of people in Indonesia, 37% in Peru and 19% in Uganda think that joining the scheme has helped them to adopted different technologies and practices for protecting, maintaining and improving the forest. What does this mean in Peru?? Ask the team
- Women have limited participation spaces in forest governance mechanisms (eg. in forest organizations, in rule making) - limiting their possibility to benefit from this. distribution of forest benefits is skewed; typically men enjoyed larger shares, particularly from products traded outside the community. Only in Uganda, women are also more likely than men to say that since they joined the scheme they have adopted different technologies and practices and that they are not concerned that someone might dispute their rights to access, use, manage or own this land/forest. Membership and tenure security Indonesia and Uganda: membership in a local forestry-related organization increases the likelihood of people stating that their rights will be protected and enforced and that their income and livelihoods have improved. -- Men are more likely members of forestry organizations in Uganda and Indonesia In Indonesia and Uganda people with this membership are more likely to perceive that their rights to access, use, manage or own this land/forest are protected; whereas in Peru they do not agree with that perception. -- does it has to do with the reform type? With external pressures? In Indonesia and Uganda people who are not consider poor are the ones who participate more in management activities. Thus also benefit more from the reform?
- Using Pearson chi square test A greater proportion of men (61%) and people who are not poor (61%) perceiving the rules easy to understand, fair and well-known; while a lower proportion of women (55%) and poor people (49%) believing the same.
- This is linked to women participation in governance/decision making spaces. Women participation is even more limited in decisions around forests – there are no participation mechanisms
- While women participate in forest management activities (planting; harvesting - reference to quantitative data)– they have no right to make decisions around forests (CFM, Community forestry – Masindi, Uganda); HKm convening processes being addressed to the housheold heads or the village leader (Terati, West Kalimanthan). “Women can participate in decision making when invited to the meetings but not always convened” (Tokan Sekayam, West Kalimanthan). A key implication of the low participation of women in the formulation of access and use rules is that the results are less sensitive to women’s concerns and needs. Women are poorly represented in decision-making and leadership positions, specially when it comes to decisions around forests - unless special provisions were made in directives, guidelines especially around local regulations and arrangements. - What should be the role of the state in these processes??