icrw assetrights i2a

Advancing Women’s Asset Rights:ICRW’s Research & Programming

June 23rd, 2011

Krista JacobsMeredith Saggers

Why Asset Rights & Gender• Asset rights economically empower women

• Women’s asset rights can benefit families & communities

• Women’s ownership of assets, especially land, is limited– Worldwide, women own 1-2% of registered

land – Although women in Uganda produce ¾ of

agricultural output, only 16% own land (Rugadya 2010, Bikaako-Kajura et al. 2006)

Why Asset Rights & Gender

• Many women do not exercise their asset rights despite favorable laws

– Lack of awareness of women’s rights

– Customary norms and attitudes discourage women having property

Gaps in the Field of Women’s Asset Rights

• What are women’s asset rights in practice?

• What factors strengthen/weaken women’s asset rights?

• How to promote awareness and exercising of women’s asset rights?

Gender, Land, & Asset Survey (GLAS):Project Overview

• Design a quantitative survey that measures the current state of women’s asset rights

• Implement survey in South Africa and Uganda

• Analyze data to understand– differences in women’s & men’s asset rights – factors that influence women’s & men’s asset

rights

• Partners: Associates Research, University of KwaZulu-Natal

What is new about the GLAS?

• Quantitative data

• Range of asset types

• Individual-level data for both women & men

• Spectrum of asset rights - ownership, documentation, use, decision-making, control of returns

Gender, Land, and Asset Survey (GLAS) Quantitative Questionnaire

Gender, Land, and Asset Survey (GLAS) Quantitative Questionnaire

What is new about the GLAS?

• Quantitative data

• Range of asset types

• Individual-level data for both women & men

• Spectrum of asset rights - ownership, documentation, use, decision-making, control of returns

Spectrum of asset rights

Perceived O

wnership

Use

Decision-Making Power

Name on Documentation

Receipt/Control of Earnings

Asset Rights

Perceived O

wnership

Use

Decision-Making Power

Name on Documentation

Receipt/Control of Earnings

Asset Rights

GLAS: Location

• Survey implemented in THREE locations

– UGANDA: • Rural Site: Butenga sub-county in Bukomansimbi

District, Central Region

– SOUTH AFRICA: • Rural Site: KwaDube in KwaZulu-Natal Province• Peri-Urban Site: Inanda in KwaZulu-Natal Province

• Rationale– Pilot methods in different tenure systems– Explore differences in rural & peri-urban locations

GLAS: Sampling

• Random selection of household from within each survey site.

• Within the household, up to TWO people interviewed

• Household head• Randomly chosen woman

GLAS: Key Findings• There are gender-asset gaps in ownership of assets

but not necessarily in useSA - peri-urban SA - rural

male heads all women79% 31%73% 32%

7.4 4.12.1 1.0

SA - ruralmale heads all women

85% 20%86% 33%21% 14%5.9 4.20.3 0.6

# material asset types used 4.6 4.6 8.0 7.0 6.5 7.1

Uganda SA - peri-urbanmale heads all women

owns land 88% 33%owns house 57% 33%

owns livestock 45% 49%# material asset types own (solely) 3.9 2.5# material asset types own (jointly) 0.0 0.0

GLAS: Key Findings• There are gender-asset gaps in documentation of assets

Uganda SA - peri-urban SA - ruralmale heads all women male heads all women male heads all women

Name on document for land 48% 13% 29% 10% 32% 5%Name on document for house 18%* 11%* 32% 12% 38% 14%

* In Uganda, % with name on document for house is only among respondents who reported the house belonged to them

GLAS: Key Findings• There are gender-asset gaps in decision-making over assets

Decision-making over land & housing in South Africa

GLAS: Key Findings• The gender-asset gap is mitigated by headship (female & male heads

have similar asset rights)

• Women who are not household heads appear, on average, more asset poor and more dependent on joint assets or assets owned by others

Ex: South Africa, ruralmale heads all women

owns land 85% 20%owns house 86% 33%

owns livestock 21% 14%# material asset types own (solely) 5.9 4.2# material asset types own (jointly) 0.3 0.6

Ex: South Africa, ruralmale heads all women female heads female non-heads

owns land 85% 20% 76% 7%owns house 86% 33% 84% 22%

owns livestock 21% 14% 23% 11%# material asset types own (solely) 5.9 4.2 6.0 3.4# material asset types own (jointly) 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7

Ex: South Africa, ruralmale heads all women female heads female non-heads

owns land 85% 20% 76% 7%owns house 86% 33% 84% 22%

owns livestock 21% 14% 23% 11%# material asset types own (solely) 5.9 4.2 6.0 3.4# material asset types own (jointly) 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7

Ownership

GLAS: Key Findings• The gender-asset gap is mitigated by headship (female & male heads

have similar asset rights)

• Women who are not household heads appear, on average, more asset poor and more dependent on joint assets or assets owned by others

Documentation

Ex: South Africa, ruralmale heads all women female heads female non-heads

Name on document for land 32% 5% 21% 1%Name on document for house 38% 14% 34% 9%

Ex: South Africa, ruralmale heads all women

Name on document for land 32% 5%Name on document for house 38% 14%

GLAS: Key Findings• The gender-asset gap is mitigated by headship

(female & male heads have similar asset rights)

Decision-making over land & housing in South Africa

GLAS: Key Findings

• Joint ownership is present• But it is unclear how “joint” or how “equal” it is

Example: joint housing ownership in Uganda

GLAS: Key Findings

• Joint ownership is present• But it is unclear how “joint” or how “equal” it is

Example: peri-urban South Africa site• Joint asset ownership is important to women’s asset holdings

– 31% of women who own land do so jointly– 53% of women who own housing do so jointly

• There is large disagreement within couples about whether land and house are jointly owned – In the 44 couples where at least one person reported owning land

jointly, 68% of couples had different responses – In the 61 couples where at least person reported owning the house

jointly, 46% of couples had different responses

• Women who own land or house jointly have weaker decision-making power over them than men who own land or house jointly

Example: Marriage in Uganda

Weaker PR(-) Stronger PR(+) Weaker PR(-) Stronger PR(+)

Land Rights

Material Asset Rights

Livestock Rights

Female Male

GLAS: Key Findings

• The same factors can have different relationships with women’s & men’s asset rights

GLAS: Key Findings• People’s understanding and experience of land tenure

does not align with statutory definitions in the law

Uganda

GLAS: Summary of Key Findings• Gender-asset gaps exist in ownership and in documentation and

decision-making

• The gender-asset gap is mitigated by headship

• Women who are not household heads appear, on average, more asset poor and more dependent on joint assets or assets owned by others

• Joint ownership is present, but it is unclear how “joint” or how “equal” it is

• Socioeconomic and structural factors (ex. marriage) can relate differently to women’s and men’s asset rights

• People’s understanding and experience of land tenure does not align with how land tenure is defined in the law

GLAS: Research Recommendations• Examine differences in asset rights among women of different

status– Household heads– Widows– Women in male-headed households– Different stages of life-cycle

• Investigate joint asset ownership– What fraction of women’s wealth is held jointly? Which

assets?– Who sees the ownership as joint?– How equal are rights between parties within joint ownership?

• Describe land tenure systems from people’s perspective– To ask more useful questions and create more relevant

measures of land rights, invest in understanding the systems people see themselves as operating in whether or not they align with law

GLAS: Policy Recommendations

• Policies in land and economic development need to consider – differences between women and men– differences among women of varied statuses

• Land law & family law may need to – clarify rules around joint ownership– address asset rights within marriage/cohabitation

• Educate communities about statutory land tenure systems to improve understanding of women’s and men’s legal rights over land

Community-based Rights Workers Program:Project Development

• Many Ugandan women do not exercise their asset rights:– Lack of awareness – Norms and attitudes

• Earlier ICRW work identified community-based legal aid and rights workers as a promising strategy

• ICRW’s Needs Assessment of programs in Uganda found– Limited training on women’s asset rights or gender– Few organizations collect readily usable information about

rights workers’ activities

Community-based Rights Workers Program:Project Overview

• TrainingCreated Property Rights & Gender Training Toolkit and used it to train community rights workers

• MonitoringDeveloped system to monitor rights workers and ULA’s activities and built capacity of participants in its use

• Assessment– How do rights workers operate?– Gaps in knowledge & attitudes around women’s asset rights in

communities– Benefits to rights workers & clients

• Partners: Uganda Land Alliance, Centre for Basic Research

Property Rights & Gender Training Toolkit• Integrated gender into discussions of Human Rights,

Land Law, Marriage & Family Law, Inheritance & Succession Law

• Created opportunities to discuss cultural norms about women’s asset rights

• Used participatory methods and case studies

Who are Rights Workers?• Volunteers • Women & men• Chosen by their communities • With some leadership experience or

community involvement• Informally provide education & mediation

Monitoring

• ICRW helped ULA & rights workers develop a monitoring system.

• Data was used to help the team to: – Identify common conflicts in the area– Understand the program activities– Improve service provision

Data EntryFill In

Monitoring FormsReporting

Turn in Forms Analyze Data

Common cases brought to rights workers

Case Topic Total Male Client Female Client

Land Boundary Dispute 28 16 12

Property damage/other disputes 19 5 14

Land Grabbing/Trespass 18 16 2

Domestic violence 14 3 11

Marital Problem 14 6 8

Child Abuse/Neglect 13 1 12

Inheritance 9 5 4

Assessment

• Goals– Identify gaps in knowledge & attitudes around the law

and women’s asset rights– Analyze the benefits of rights workers and make

recommendations for improvements– Determine how rights workers operate in their

communities

• Data Sources: – Quantitative survey interviews with community members

– Qualitative interviews with rights workers, clients, and leaders

– Monitoring data from LLRAA & ULA activities

How Do Right Workers Programs Operate?

• Client Cases– Handled 166 cases: 86 men, 80 women across 72 villages– Clients come to rights workers after:

• Meeting them at an education event• Referral from local leaders

– Centered around mediation

• Education Events– Held 129 education events in 64 communities with 2,503 men,

2,969 women in attendance– Two main types of events

• Speak at existing event• Hold separate event

– Demand driven

How Do Rights Workers Programs Operate?

• Resolve cases quickly

Case Topic Total Resolved Resolved onSame Day

Land Boundary Dispute 28 46% 86%

Property damage 11 27% 67%

Land Grabbing 10 10% 100%

Inheritance 9 44% 50%

Trespass 8 38% 67%

How do Rights Workers Programs work?

• Legal education activities implemented in a scattered fashion with no defined workplan

Event Topic Number of Events

Number of villages

Average # of visits

Landlord-tenant relations 28 24 1.2

Women’s rights 16 16 1

Will writing 15 13 1.2

Marriage and property rights 14 11 1.3

Children’s rights 13 9 1.4

Land tenure systems 13 10 1.3

Program Achievements

Benefits to rights workers

– Empowerment (esp. confidence and knowledge)

– Visibility

“[Being a rights worker], it has helped me so much. Because even to speak in a meeting, it is not easy. But now I can address anything to the people without fear…And even my community is recognizing me. If I stand up to speak [or] talk about something, all the people they listen to me…” (Rights worker, male, 31 years old)

Program Achievements

Benefits to clients– Resolved clients’ cases quickly, conveniently,

amicably, and free of charge– Gained knowledge of the law– Empowerment

“I did not know that a widow is entitled to the house once the husband is dead. But now I know…I did not know that when I lose my husband I am entitled to his property and land. Now I know all those things….There is no one now who can take me for granted or deceive me about the law…” (Client, female, 50 years old)

Program Achievements

Benefits to community– Rights workers can serve as local legal experts– Reduce land-related violence

“Indeed many things have been destroyed because of land wrangles, people have been killed, families have separated because of land. So it is worthwhile to talk about it daily.” (Client, female, 48 years old)

Gaps in KnowledgePeople did not know…

• What constitutes legal marriage and divorce

• Marriage certificate are available for customary marriages

• Couples who live together but are not married do not have legal claims to each other’s property

• Women and girls have a legal right to inherit

• What land tenure systems exist and the rules of those systems

• Legal rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in the predominant local land tenure system

Future Actions

• Systematize & intensify rights workers’ legal education events

• Strengthen relationships with local leaders and institutions

• Tailor legal education to fill knowledge gaps in communities

• Support and strengthen monitoring efforts focusing on using information to improve programs and advocacy

THANK YOU!

QUESTIONS?

Publications available at www.icrw.org