EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only United Nations Nations Unies United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women United Nations Economic Commission for Europe United Nations Development Programme Expert Group Meeting on “The impact of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals” United Nations Office at Geneva 11-13 November 2009 Women’s Role in Agriculture and in Rural Welfare: Access to Land and Resources Expert paper prepared by: Susana Lastarria-Cornhiel * Department of Urban and Regional Planning Land Tenure Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin (USA) Division for the Advancement of Women Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations, New York Fax: (212) 963-3463 [email protected] http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw * The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations. EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only 1. INTRODUCTION One of the major globalization trends with regard to rural land is the privatization of property rights. International donor agencies and governments have modified their objective of promoting equitable access to land to that of privatizing property rights, rationalizing that private ownership of agricultural land facilitates access to factor markets thus increasing agricultural production. Improved agricultural production, it is reasoned, will eventually result in the efficient allocation of landed resources among producers, including smallholders. Land redistribution programmes are now called market-assisted land reform. This privatization trend is also reflected in the numerous projects and programmes to title and register land rights and to create or activate land markets. Titling and registration programmes are often accompanied by legislation that regularizes private land rights and/or extends individual private property rights for previously public, state, or customary land. This paper will focus on the impact these trends have had on women’s land rights and tenure security, and their ability to produce. Has privatization, through either tenure reform or titling, protected or enhanced women’s rights to land? If privatized land rights increase access to factor markets such as credit for smallholders, have women also been able to access these markets? An examination of the privatization process in a number of regions reveals that where previously different rights to land were distributed among different groups and individuals, privatization tends to concentrate most of these land rights in the hands of a minority. Because of economic and cultural factors and the influence of powerholders, this minority tends to exclude women. This paper will first explain briefly why gendered relations around property rights are an important development and welfare issue. Then it will explore what has happened to women’s rights under agrarian reforms, titling and registration programmes, and land privatization programmes in general. The paper will then briefly describe how women have attempted to respond to threats on their rights. The final section will explore the relation between property rights and access to factor markets, a crucial relation in agricultural production for the market. 2. WHY GENDER? EQUITY, EFFICIENCY AND WELFARE ISSUES Systematic differences in land tenure rights between men and women contribute to structural inequality and to poverty for women. Access to land and control over its use are the basis for food and income production in rural areas, and, more broadly, for household wellbeing. Access to other productive resources such as water, irrigation systems, and forest products is tied to land tenure as well (Meizen-Dick et al. 1997). Women who become heads of household are particularly vulnerable: when their access to land is through their husbands and fathers, they often lose their property rights as a consequence of widowhood, divorce, or desertion. Differences in property rights of women and men, and lack of direct access to and control of land, may place constraints on women’s productive roles and diminish their power and influence in the household and the community. In many societies, property rights reflect, if not determine, a person’s citizenship status or degree of inclusion in the group. In Mexico’s ejidos, for Page 2 EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only example, only persons who have ejidal rights to land are considered ejido members with the right to vote on community issues. Often, denial of property rights is used as an exclusionary mechanism for certain ethnic or racial minority groups. When women are denied equal property rights, they also experience reduced social, economic, and often political status. Women provide a large proportion of the labor that goes into agricultural production, even though official statistics based on census and survey instruments that underestimate women’s work indicate otherwise.1 More importantly, the trend is for women to become increasingly involved in agricultural production. One trend is that more rural women are working off the farm as agri-business enterprises contract them both as field workers and processors (Lastarria- Cornhiel 2006). Another trend is that women assume responsibility of the family farm when men take on wage work. Economic production theory would indicate that if smallholder women are to produce efficiently, they should have control over the resources they need to produce not only for themselves and their families but for local and regional markets as well. Women in most regions tend to be ultimately responsible for children and other dependents, whether there is a male reference person present in the household or not. Female-headed households, both de jure and de facto, are on the increase2 because of migration and male parental abandonment. But even when a male spouse is present, in some societies the norm is that women feed and clothe their children. Women’s increasing responsibility in reproducing and maintaining the family has increased over the last decades for a number of reasons: • people are simply more mobile, and when men migrate away from their families women are often left with sole responsibility for their families; • societies and resource-poor households become more economically vulnerable to global market forces as traditional foods become less economical to produce, rural incomes decline, commercial agriculture becomes more input intensive, and productive resources are dominated by agri-business; • local and regional crises such as civil war and AIDS affect men and women, but it is the women who are often left to care for orphaned dependents. Food security and family wellbeing are thus important reasons for protecting or enhancing women’s rights to land. Studies have shown that resources controlled by women are more likely to be used to improve family food consumption and welfare, reducing child malnutrition and increasing overall wellbeing.3 1 Women have always worked in the production of food and other products in rural areas. Official statistics, both governmental and international, reflect the fact that how agricultural work is officially defined and recorded tends to exclude women’s agricultural activities, in spite of efforts to improve gender-differentiated data in agricultural census and household surveys (see, for example, FAO 1993). 2 The feminization of agriculture and rural areas is demonstrated in the increasing number of rural households in which a woman is the head or the reference person. Regional statistics show that in Southern Africa such households represent 42 percent of the total and in the Caribbean they represent 35 percent (United Nations 2000: pp 42, 46-50). 3 Some of these include Blumberg 1991, Von Braun et al 1994, Hirschmann 1984. Page 3 EGM/BPFA–MDG/2009/EP.1 4 November 2009 ENGLISH only Along with the fact that women increasingly participate in agricultural production and assume more responsibility for families, rural societies are changing; social norms, values, and practices are being modified. The traditional safeguards—or safety nets—that customary systems offered women are being disregarded, often leaving women vulnerable with regard to access to resources. When a customary tenure system is able to ensure that households in the community have sufficient resources to provide for its subsistence needs, lower status persons such as women are also assured the means to provide for themselves and their families—though their access to land and land-based resources is indirect and often dependent on a male relative (Guyer 1987). The reality today, however, is that many of these customary tenure systems are no longer capable of assuring households (and the women of these households) access to sufficient land. A number of factors, including a growing market economy, increasing poverty, and commercial agriculture convert land into an asset resulting in land scarcity and in rights to land becoming more individualized. Since women often do not have direct control over resources, they tend to lose their indirect rights when societal changes occur because those who have traditionally controlled resources are able to increase their own rights, often at the expense of those with secondary rights. In part this occurs because of market forces, but also because of social and economic upheaval. As land becomes a marketable asset, family and community members, who in