CGIAR Systemwide Program on
Collective Action and Property Rights
|
Gender, Property Rights, And Natural Resource
May 1997 |
|
ABSTRACT • Full Text |
|
|
This paper analyzes the ways in which gender issues affect property rights and the use of natural resources in developing countries. It examines the informal practices of resource use, usually involving multiple uses by multiple users. Traditional systems of access to land, water, and trees reflect complex dynamics among community members that must be understood in order to design successful policy interventions concerning natural resources.
Drawing on examples from developing countries worldwide, the paper identifies broad patterns in how property rights are determined. It discusses the effects of privatization and commoditization of resources, and it identifies key issues to consider in the context of proposed resource management programs.
The Study
The study combines a literature review with a review of papers and discussion at IFPRI's e-mail conference on gender and property rights, which took place during 1997.
Findings
The study found a wide gap between de jure and de facto jurisdiction over property in virtually all the cases studied. In rural areas, the use of land, water, and trees was governed by social and cultural norms and practices to a far greater extent than by legal ownership by an individual or household. For example, multiple users had access to a stream for feeding animals, washing, and irrigating fields.
Policymakers must look beyond legal and formal rights to understand the complex ways that access to resources is determined.
The study also found that property rights, access to resources, and relationships among multiple users were significantly affected by gender differences. For example, cultural norms differentiated the ways in which women were allowed to use a forest, such as for gathering fruit, from men's activities, such as harvesting logs. These gender differences in access to resources significantly affect natural resource use in four main areas: (1) environmental sustainability, (2) efficiency of resource use, (3) equity of resource allocation among users, and (4) empowerment of users, particularly women.
Environmental Sustainability
Secure tenure of resources encourages investment in resource management. People with long-term access to resources have greater incentive to sustain them and thus develop better ways of preserving and regenerating them. Although it is difficult to measure the impact of property rights on sustainability, findings suggest that flexible tenure arrangements—particularly those incorporating women's input— should be encouraged.
Efficiency of Use
As is the case with environmental preservation, tenure of resources also encourages increased production and efficiency of use. Efficiency of use, however, is, in part, defined by gender. For example, the study examined the case of a forest that produced both fruit and logs. Logs, mar-keted by men, had a higher market value and might have been preferred over fruits, which were gathered by women for food and income. Yet if reducing child malnutrition were the goal of a project, fruits would be given priority over logs (despite their lower market value), given the propensity of women's income to improve children's nutrition. Thus it is essential to understand the full range of users and uses of a resource when designing resource management projects.
Equity of Resource Allocation Among Users
Acquisition of resources is often determined by labor contributions (sweat equity) rather than cash purchase or inheritance. While this leads to equity of resource allocation in some cases, depending on one's concept of equity, in many situations women face biases to access and production. Barriers range from social norms (as in Nepal, where women are pro-hibited from working in irrigation systems because of ritual "pollution" laws) to time constraints; women's additional domestic responsibilities kept them from contributing as much labor as their male counterparts to numerous land projects, essentially leaving them behind in the competition for access to resources. The study suggests that projects should aim to secure both formal and informal equity of resource allocation, by focusing not just on legal ownership but on programs for credit, legal assistance, and other critical support.
Empowerment of Users
Acquisition of property rights can significantly increase a woman's voice in her household and give her greater bargaining power among household and community members. The study finds that collective action by women's support groups is the most effective method of strengthening women's access to natural resources. It also finds that use rights are probably more important goals for policy interventions than formal ownership rights.
Another issue to consider is the privatization and commoditization of resources. The shift away from traditional tenure systems to more formalized property rights is a strong trend, especially where scarcity or value of the resources is growing. During this process, property is often transferred from the community to individuals (or corporations). Community access to the resources—now controlled and marketed as commodities—is no longer permitted in most cases. Because women are usually less able than men to acquire property legally, they are hurt most by this trend. They are far more likely than men to lose access to the water, forests, and land upon which they depend for their subsistence needs.
Policy Implications
Policymakers must look beyond legal and formal rights to understand the complex ways that access to resources is determined. The findings of this study strongly suggest that privatization programs should encourage ownership by women, and should include complementary programs to provide essential resources for production, including credit, legal assistance, and other resources. Wherever possible, alternative arrangements accommodating multiple users should be encouraged to promote sustainability of both the resources and the community. While national policy is necessary to achieve these goals, it is not sufficient to improve equity: local practices are critical, and local input must be incorporated into policy designs.
|
|