Women’s access to land, inputs, services, finance and digital technology – which is key to working in agrifood systems – continues to lag behind men’s.
In many countries there still is much to do to ensure that women own land in equal proportion to men and that legal frameworks protect their rights. Men have greater ownership or secure tenure rights over agricultural land than do women in 40 of 46 countries with available data, and protections for women’s land rights in the law are low in 50 percent of countries reporting on Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 5.a.2.
It is alarming how little the gaps in women’s access to extension and irrigation and ownership of livestock have closed over the past decade, although it is encouraging that gaps in their access to financial services, mobile internet and mobile phones are narrowing. The gender gap in women’s access to mobile internet in low- and middle-income countries reduced from 25 percent to 16 percent between 2017 and 2021, and the gender gap in access to bank accounts reduced from 9 percentage points to 6 percentage points.
Introduction
Ensuring that women have equal access to and control over resources is central for achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment in agrifood systems. Secure rights over land, water and livestock can expand rural women’s economic opportunities, strengthen their decision-making power over household productive assets and income, and contribute to their resilience to shocks, including global economic crises and climate-related shocks (see Chapter 5 for an in-depth discussion).
Equal access to agricultural inputs, technologies and complementary resources for men and women farmers would help reduce the gender gaps in land and labour productivity and reduce women’s food insecurity. New sources of inequality may emerge (e.g. digital technology) as economic development and agrifood-system transformation result in employment progressively shifting from agriculture to the off-farm segments of agrifood systems. These changes also give new urgency to the need to close long-existing inequalities in access to resources such as education.
This chapter describes gender patterns in access to and ownership of resources that are important for women’s livelihoods and empowerment in agrifood systems, including education, land, water, livestock as well as complementary resources, technologies and services. It takes stock of where progress has been made, has stalled or even reversed in the last decade. Recent research has moved beyond documenting the gender gap in agriculture and agrifood systems to examining decision-making processes over resources and analysing the underlying constraints that trigger and sustain such inequalities.1
In a sample of 20 countries, less than 1% of poor rural women finished secondary education.
Education
Education, for both boys and girls, is fundamental to tackling all aspects of gender inequality. Education for women and girls provides more than access to better jobs in agrifood systems. It is about empowering them to pursue the opportunities they choose to pursue, inside and outside of agrifood systems. Without sufficient education, women are significantly disadvantaged in their ability to make use of rights they may have to own and inherit land, to access agricultural finance or make use of digital technologies. The gender land gap tends to be lower in countries with higher female education levels than in those with lower levels of female education.2 Women with higher levels of education working in agrifood systems receive higher wages and are more productive than those with lower levels of education (Chapter 2). But education has many other and wide-ranging social and economic benefits, such as, for example, improvements in maternal and child health and nutrition.3
Gender inequalities in education persist globally and at all levels of education, despite improvements in the last two decades. Progress in gender parity has been more consistent in primary education than in secondary and tertiary education, including across regions.4 Sub-Saharan Africa continues to score the lowest in gender parity in both secondary and tertiary education.4 Gender disparities in education are greater among the poorest households and in rural areas. In a sample of 20 countries, less than 1 percent of poor rural women finished secondary education,5 a major barrier to increasing women’s empowerment.
Land
When land and property rights are insecure, women and men cannot confidently plan, invest in, improve or dispose of their land. Stronger land rights for women are positively associated with greater adoption of technologies, increase in investments and higher levels of agricultural productivity and income (see Chapter 6). Secure land tenure is also an important aspect of women’s empowerment and is associated with additional social benefits, including lower rates of domestic violence (Box 3.1).
BOX 3.1 LAND, WATER AND GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE
Land
A growing body of evidence seeks to unpack the ambiguous relationship between women’s landownership and gender-based violence. Women’s landownership by itself does not reduce gender-based violence, but instead likely works through i) increasing women’s economic empowerment and bargaining power, ii) improving their knowledge and self-esteem alongside freedom of mobility and market access, and iii) enhancing women’s social position by recognizing their agency and claims to rights and freedom.i However, if men see women’s economic empowerment and increased property as a threat to their own power, they may retaliate by perpetrating violence, both within and outside the household.i, ii
Across several states in India, women who owned land reported that land and asset ownership had reduced verbal, physical and sexual abuse inflicted on them.i, iii, iv Landless women also reported that they would experience less violence if they owned land. Many women stated that landownership reduced dependency and feelings of discomfort and being unworthy, and helped them gain voice and acceptance in their parental and marital families.i
Men’s perceptions, however, were mixed: some affirmed that women’s land entitlement would enable them to better manage the household and improve nutrition, while others stated that women who were given land would become selfish and create problems in the household. Men and women complained about the poor quality of land given by the government to women but noted that landownership had led to women’s increased mobility and enhanced awareness in the past decade. However, structural factors, such as poor information regarding land and revenue administration processes, all-male staffed revenue administrations and all-male institutions (for example, village governance bodies) were limiting.i
In Nicaragua and the United Republic of Tanzania, women’s landownership was significantly related to lower levels of partner power, resulting in a decrease in physical and psychological violence.v Women stated that property ownership strengthened their ability to address their own needs independent of their husbands, thereby interrupting sociocultural structures of male power. However, an analysis of women’s sole or joint landownership of land and experience of intimate partner violence from 28 Demographic and Health Surveys found inconclusive evidence on this relationship.ii
Women’s awareness of their property rights and support from institutions, including social norms and laws governing landownership, are also crucial to protect them from gender-based violence.vi Individuals, the private sector, the government or other stakeholders may use gender-based violence as a coercive tactic in land grabbing.vi, vii Women may also be forced to trade sex to access land or resolve land issues. In Sierra Leone, for example, 8 percent of women and 5 percent of men reported that they had been asked for a sexual favour to resolve land issues or knew someone who had been asked for such favours.vi, viii
Water
Lack of access to and inability to benefit from affordable, adequate, reliable and safe water increase the risk of gender-based violence, with women and girls struggling to safely obtain enough water for household use. A global review of the evidence related to gender-based violence carried out in 2022 shows that violence against women is connected to gender norms that rationalize violence, make water and related household tasks the sole responsibility of women, and limit women’s ability to ask for support.ix Water insecurity commonly increases the risk of sexual violence while accessing water and having insufficient water in the household can lead to physical violence, often perpetrated by intimate partners.
NOTES:
Kelkar, G., Gaikwad, S. & Mandal, S. 2015. Women’s asset ownership and reduction in gender-based violence. Seattle, WA, USA, Landesa and New Delhi, Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
Peterman, A., Pereira, A., Bleck, J., Palermo, T.M. & Yount, K.M. 2017. Women’s individual asset ownership and experience of intimate partner violence: Evidence from 28 international surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 107(5): 747–755.
Bhattacharyya, M., Bedi, A.S. & Chhachhi, A. 2011. Marital violence and women’s employment and property status: Evidence from north Indian villages. World Development, 39(9): 1676–1689.
Panda, P. & Agarwal, B. 2005. Marital violence, human development and women’s property status in India. World Development, 33(5): 823–850.
Grabe, S. 2015. Participation: Structural and relational power and Maasai women’s political subjectivity in Tanzania. Feminism & Psychology, 25(4): 528–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353515591369
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2021. Gender and national climate planning: Gender integration in the revised Nationally Determined Contributions. Gland, Switzerland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49860
Izumi, K. 2007. Gender-based violence and property grabbing in Africa: A denial of women’s liberty and security. Gender & Development, 15(1): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070601178823
Transparency International. 2018. Women, land and corruption: Resources for practitioners and policy-makers. Berlin.
Tallman, P.S., Collins, S., Salmon-Mulanovich, G., Rusyidi, B., Kothadia, A. & Cole, S. 2022. Water insecurity and gender-based violence: A global review of the evidence. WIREs Water, 10(1): e1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1619
The importance of women’s land rights has been increasingly recognized in major international processes and instruments, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security,6 which were endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security in 2012. The Voluntary Guidelines include gender equality as one of their ten implementation principles, stressing its importance in all aspects associated with land-tenure governance. Recognizing that secure land rights are critical for the achievement of gender equality and women’s empowerment (SDG 5) and for poverty elimination (SDG 1), the SDGs include the following three separate indicators on land: 1) Indicator 5.a.1 tracks the gender patterns of landownership or secure rights among agricultural populations; 2) Indicator 5.a.2 assesses the extent to which national laws and policies recognize and protect women’s rights to land (see Box 3.2); and 3) Indicator 1.4.2 reports gender statistics related to land tenure insecurity.7
BOX 3.2 WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO LAND IN THE LAW
SDG Indicator 5.a.2i is defined as the proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to own and/or control land. This indicator is not limited to agricultural populations or agricultural land and is measured using the following six proxies:
joint registration of land;
spousal consent for land transactions;
equal inheritance rights for women and girls in estate successions;
allocation of financial resources to strengthen women’s landownership;
the protection of women’s rights to land under customary law, if customary law, customary land or customary institutions are recognized in the law; and
quotas for women’s participation in land governance.
The proxies are drawn from international law and internationally accepted good practices, in particular the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)ii and the Voluntary Guidelines for the responsible governance of the tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security.iii
Proxies D and F are considered to be present not only if resources or quotas are prescribed by law but also, in the absence of such provisions, if official national statistics show that at least 40 percent of individuals with ownership or secure rights to land are women. This is the case in seven countries: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, Rwanda and Sweden.
Proxy E is not applicable in the national laws in 28 countries, mainly in Europe and western Asia. Proxy E is not applicable when customary law, customary land or customary institutions are not recognized in the law even if in some countries they may affect land tenure arrangements on the ground.
Countries did not start reporting on SDG 5.a.2 until 2019 because internationally accepted methodology and standards for data collection were not agreed to until November 2017. By March 2023, 68 countries, across regions, levels of development and legal systems, and representing different religious and cultural contexts, have reported on SDG Indicator 5.a.2, with Pakistan being the only country thus far that has reported twice.
NOTES:
See United Nations. 2023. SDG Indicators. Metadata repository. In: United Nations Statistics Division, Sustainable Development Goals. New York, USA. Cited 20 March 2023. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/ and FAO. 2021. Realizing women’s rights to land in the law, A guide for reporting on SDG Indicator 5.a.2. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/i8785en/I8785EN.pdf
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Adopted: United Nations General Assembly, 18 December 1979. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm
FAO. 2022. Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. First revision. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/i2801e
Legal protections for women’s land rights are low in 34 out of 68 countries that have reported on indicator 5.a.2 (Table 3.1). In these countries, at most two of the five or six proxies used to measure indicator 5.a.2 are present. However, 21 out of the 68 countries have high or very high levels of protection of women’s land rights in law, with four to six proxies present. As highlighted in Box 3.2, seven out of these 21 countries score well because official national statistics show that at least 40 percent of individuals with ownership or secure rights to land are women.
Table 3.1 Level of protection for women’s land rights in national laws
SOURCE: FAO data based on officially submitted SDG Indicator 5.a.2 assessments, March 2023.
Legal protections for women’s land rights are low in 50 percent of countries.
In each region there is wide variation in the number of proxies present at the country level (Figure 3.1). All regions have good examples of governments adopting legal and policy reforms for advancing women’s land rights. However, additional efforts to improve the state of women’s land rights are often needed even in countries with high or very high levels of protection for women’s land rights.
Figure 3.1 Good examples of legal and policy reforms for advancing women’s land rights exist in all regions
Scores of reporting countries by region
NOTES: * Countries for which protection under customary law (proxy E) is not applicable. ^Countries for which one or two of the six proxies (see Box 3.2) are considered present because statistics show that at least 40 percent of people with ownership or secure land rights are women. Averages for the regions/subregions/groupings are marked in grey and are only reported when at least 50 percent of the countries in the particular group have officially reported on the indicator.
SOURCE: FAO data based on officially submitted SDG Indicator 5.a.2 assessments, March 2023.
A majority of reporting countries score well in the areas of marital property (proxy B)9 and inheritance (proxy C) (Figure 3.2), but few legal reforms have been adopted in these areas since 2010.10 In 60 percent of countries, one spouse cannot dispose of land or property that is considered joint marital property without the consent of the other. Fifty-seven percent of reporting countries support equal inheritance rights for all children and the surviving spouse, regardless of sex. In 43 percent of the countries, women’s and girls’ inheritance rights are not (fully) recognized, or not equal to those of men, or only applicable to certain groups.11 This is often because religious or customary laws influence the inheritance regime.
Figure 3.2 A majority of reporting countries score well in the areas of marital property and inheritance
The percentage of the 68 countries reporting in which each proxy is present
NOTES:
*The statistics are based on the sample of 40 countries for which protection under customary law (proxy E) is applicable.
**Financial resources (proxy D) and participation in land governance (proxy F) are present on the basis of either legal provisions in the law or statistics (see Box 3.2).
SOURCE: FAO data based on officially submitted SDG Indicator 5.a.2 assessment, March 2023.
Joint registration of land (proxy A) is present in 24 of the 68 reporting countries. In the majority of these countries, jointly owned land must be registered and certificates or titles issued in the name of both spouses. Kenya is one of the countries that have adopted land reforms to require joint registration in the last 10 years.12 Mandatory joint titling has also been a feature of the land allocation and agrarian reform programmes in several Latin American countries, such as the Plurinational State of Bolivia13 and the Dominican Republic.14 Only two countries in the sample – Nepal15 and Thailand16 – encourage joint registration through economic incentives.
Of the 40 countries that recognize customary law in their legal framework (proxy E), 21 countries ensure gender equality with respect to land rights. For instance, in Chad, Ecuador, Kenya, Malawi, the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda both the constitution and land laws explicitly state that custom cannot be contrary to the principles of non-discrimination or gender equality, thereby setting clear boundaries for those who implement the laws. In other legal systems, the protections may be either only at the constitutional level or in the relevant land laws. Most of these reforms have been introduced recently, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.17
Temporary special measures18 can support the implementation of policies and laws, thereby contributing to accelerating gender equality in practice. Such measures have increasingly been adopted in the last decade, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa (often as part of a broader set of legal reforms) and Latin America. They are also found in countries with weak(er) protections in marriage and inheritance laws such as Chad, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and the Niger. Nine out of 16 countries with proxy D present have adopted legal provisions allocating financial resources to strengthening women’s landownership, whereas 22 out of 28 countries with proxy F present mandate quotas for women’s representation in land institutions. Although there have been encouraging advancements, additional actions may be necessary to address gender disparities in other domains that could impede the effective implementation of these measures. Ethiopia, for example, revoked the requirement in most states that demanded 30 percent of women’s participation in Rural Lands Adjudication Committees because numerous rural women who were appointed to these committees were unable to fulfil their duties due to conflicting obligations related to child care and household chores.
Gender inequalities in land rights among agricultural populations
The lack of implementation and enforcement of legally-protected rights remains a major obstacle to the achievement of gender equality in land rights in practice, particularly among rural and agriculture-dependent populations. Unfortunately, harmonized, sex-disaggregated statistics on land rights remain scarce at the global level, despite advances in how to collect and produce such statistics. Most countries do not collect data on SDG Indicator 5.a.1. Even when they report on this indicator, not all countries follow the agreed methodology, and few provide information on multiple land rights (see Box 3.3).
BOX 3.3 THE COLLECTION OF SEX-DISAGGREGATED SURVEY DATA ON LAND RIGHTS
Significant improvements have been made in measuring and monitoring women’s and men’s land rights since The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–11 (SOFA 2010–11).i
Whose rights to report on – agricultural holder versus individual men and women? SOFA 2010–11 reported statistics about agricultural holders, defined as “the person or group of persons who exercise management control over an agricultural holding.” However, the concept of agricultural holders does not capture the true distribution of landownership (or other rights) among household members and by gender,ii, iii and has been replaced with a focus on individual men’s and women’s land rights.
What rights to measure? Women’s land rights are conceptualized as a bundle of rights,iv bringing attention to the fact that women and men may have some rights to a particular plot of land but not others. Those that manage the land do not always have the rights to sell the land (alienation rights), and in some contexts men and women may report being landowners but without the right to sell or bequeath the land.v
Methodological innovations were taken forward in the formulation of SDG Indicator 5.a.1, which comprises of two sub-indicators: (a) the proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) the share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure. In the methodology for SDG Indicator 5.a.1, secure tenure rights comprise both landownership and two key alienation rights: the right to sell and the right to bequeath agricultural land. Nevertheless, there are significant gaps in the application of the methodology, particularly with regard to how data on land rights of people dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods are collected in surveys. For example, for a large share of countries, the estimates of Indicator 5.a.1 are based on data from the Demographic Health Surveys. These surveys collect only self-reported information on whether the respondent owns any land; they frequently do not follow up with questions about the type of land owned (agricultural, residential, etc.) or whether the respondents have the rights to alienate the land through sales or bequest. They also interview women and men of reproductive age, so may not include older women, whose land rights may be more insecure.vi
Only five nationally representative surveys have collected data on multiple rights over land, including the right to bequeath the land, as outlined in the methodology (Table A). In the United Republic of Tanzania, a similar percentage of men and women in agricultural households have documented ownership of land, and gender balance has improved over time. However, in the other countries women clearly trail behind men in access to ownership documents. In Malawi, where a large share of all landowners are women, fewer women than men have documents confirming their land rights. The gender gap in documented rights is particularly glaring in Nigeria. The proportion of both men and women reporting having ownership or alienation rights who have documents to support their reported land rights is very low in all the countries except Cambodia and Ethiopia.
Table A Percentage of agricultural population with ownership and alienation rights over land
SOURCE: FAO data for SDG Indicator 5.a.1, February 2023.
Twyman, J., Useche, P. & Deere, C.D. 2015. Gendered perceptions of land ownership and agricultural decision-making in Ecuador: Who are the farm managers? Land Economics, 91(3): 479–500.
Hillesland, M., Slavchevska, V., Henderson, H., Okello, P. & Oumo, F.N. 2020. Beyond the sex of the holder: understanding agricultural production decisions within household farms in Uganda. AgriGender, 05(01): 14–27.
Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. 1w992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3): 249–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146375
Slavchevska, V., Doss, R., O Campos, A.P. & Brunelli, C. 2021. Beyond ownership: women’s and men’s land rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Development Studies, 49(1): 2–22.
See also United Nations. 2019. Guidelines for producing statistics on asset ownership from a gender perspective. Studies in Methods, Series F No. 119. New York, USA, UNDESA, Statistical Division.
Where data do exist, women in agricultural households remain significantly disadvantaged in landownership. In more than 30 percent of the 46 countries that have reported on SDG 5.a.1, the percentage of men who have ownership or secure tenure rights over land is twice as high as that for women (Figure 3.3). These data refers specifically to agricultural households. Additionally, in almost all countries (40 of 46) a larger share of men have ownership and/or secure tenure rights compared with women.
Figure 3.3 Men are more likely to have landownership rights than women
Share of women and men in the adult agricultural population with ownership or secure tenure rights. Dots above the diagonal line indicate that a larger percentage men than women own land.
Rates of agricultural land ownership or secure tenure rights by country
SOURCE: FAO data for SDG Indicator 5.a.1(a) for 46 countries, February 2023.
NOTE: Dots above the diagonal line indicate that a larger percentage men than women own land.
In 40 of 46 countries a higher share of men haVE ownership and/or secure tenure rights compared with women.
The share of women among all agricultural landowners or secure right holders ranges between 6.6 percent in Pakistan (in 2018) and 57.8 percent in Malawi (in 2020) (Figure 3.4). In 14 countries, representing one in three of the countries that have reported on SDG Indicator 5.a.1, men represent at least 70 percent of all landowners or holders of secure tenure rights. Most of these countries are in West Africa, but there are also examples from Asia (Pakistan) and Latin America and the Caribbean (Honduras and Peru). In 11 countries, more women than men own agricultural land in the year of their most recent survey. Both Ethiopian and Rwanda have made great efforts to ensure gender-responsive land certification and to raise awareness about women’s land rights.19 In Malawi, matrilineal lines of inheritance are strong, which may explain the large share of women among agricultural landowners.
Figure 3.4 Share of women among all agricultural landowners or holders of secure tenure rights over agricultural land
SOURCE: FAO data for SDG Indicator 5.a.1(b) for 46 countries, February 2023.
NOTES: Final boundary between the Sudan and South Sudan has not yet been determined. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.
Research suggests female asset ownership is higher in countries with more egalitarian legal regimes towards women.20,21 However, the relationship between women’s legal land rights (SDG Indicator 5.a.2) and female agricultural producers’ landownership as reported in surveys (SDG Indicator 5.a.1) is not strong. More support for women’s legal land rights is associated with smaller gender gaps, but the association is not statistically significant. A few countries have strong legal protections for women’s land rights, but their implementation is lagging and surveys find significant gender inequalities in land rights.22 In other countries (e.g. Myanmar), surveys suggest equality in landownership among agricultural producers, even though very low legal protections for women’s land rights were reported in SDG Indicator 5.a.2.
Over the last decade, the share of women among landowners has increased in ten out of 18 countries for which longitudinal data are available (Figure 3.5). The increase in the share of women among landowners in India, Nepal, Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania is substantial. It is quite small in other countries due in part either because the change was measured over a very short period or because, in countries such as Cambodia and Rwanda, the share of women among landowners was relatively high to start with. In three countries – Burkina Faso, Indonesia and Peru – there has been no notable progress at all. In five countries the share of women among landowners has decreased.
The share of women among landowners increased in more than half of reporting countries over the last decade.
Figure 3.5 The share of women among landowners increased in more than half of reporting countries over the last decade
The share of women among owners for selected countries with available data over time
SOURCE: FAO data for SDG Indicator 5.a.1(b) for 18 countries with multiple data points over time, February 2023.
NOTE: Burkina Faso (2014–2019); Burundi (2010–2016); Ethiopia (2014–2019); the Gambia (2013–2020); Guinea (2012–2018); Malawi (2013–2020); the Niger (2011–2019); Nigeria (2013–2019); Rwanda (2010–2019); Togo (2014–2019); United Republic of Tanzania (2009–2019); Zambia (2014–2018); Peru (2014–2019); Cambodia (2010–2019); India (2012–2020); Indonesia (2012–2017); Nepal (2011–2016); Pakistan (2013–2018).
Reported ownership does not necessarily provide a clear indication of tenure security. Based on data from 70 low- and middle-income countries,23 one in five women and men globally report insecure tenure rights over their main property, which is often their home. A similar share also reports insecure tenure over an additional property that is specifically used for agricultural purposes. Women are significantly more likely to worry about losing property in the case of divorce or spousal death: nearly 22 percent of women report being worried of losing their main property and adjacent land, compared with 17 percent of men, and around 25 percent of women feel insecure about another agricultural property, compared with 15 percent of men. Moreover, rural women are significantly more likely than urban women to worry about losing their home and adjacent land in the case of divorce or spousal death. Insecurity decreases with age among men but not among women. Better educated women are less likely to report tenure insecurity; this may be because they might be more aware of their tenure rights.
Water
People’s health and well-being are dependent on their access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene (SDG 6), but access to drinking water services remains poor in rural areas in low- and middle-income countries. Although globally men are as likely as women to report experiencing water insecurity,24,25 women are more aware of all the daily activities that take place to maintain household water supply26 and this remains an important source of inequalities. Water insecurity has direct effects on the health and nutrition of all family members; children, pregnant women and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to water insecurity because of their distinct needs and dependencies. Women and girls disproportionally bear the responsibility to collect water because of prevailing gender norms and the gender division of labour (see Chapter 2), but collecting water often exposes them to gender-based violence (Box 3.1).27
Water constitutes a central resource for agricultural production and for other areas of agrifood systems, such as processing, trading, retailing and consumption. Access to and use of water in agrifood systems is highly gendered and intersects with other forms of social differentiation such as class, age and ethnicity.28,29 Gender inequalities in access to and management of water resources have wide-reaching implications on girls’ education,30 women’s livelihoods31 and empowerment,32 and the health and nutrition of their households.33,34
In low- and middle-income countries, land and water rights for agriculture are closely related.35 Gender inequalities in land rights can impact women’s water rights36 and rights to irrigation technology.37 While countries in many regions employ water user groups and community participation to manage water resources, women's participation in them remains low (Figure 3.6). Membership in water user associations may be restricted to landowners and might therefore limit women’s participation.36,38
At national level, few countries have developed gender-responsive water management policies. In 2020, only 44 out of 170 countries reporting data on SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) actively worked on gender mainstreaming in water management, while only 47 out of 104 have specific policies for women’s participation in water management.39
The gender barriers in access to water for productive purpose are also closely related to issues of governance and voice in water institutions. Globally, women’s participation in integrated water resources management and governance (i.e. women formally represented or regularly consulted in these processes) occurs at a high level in only 22 percent of countries39 (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6 Only 22 percent of countries report high levels of women’s participation in integrated water resources management
Participation of women in integrated water resource management, 2018–2019 (percentage of countries)
SOURCE: UN Women & UNDESA. 2021. Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. The Gender and Snapshot 2021. New York, USA, UN Women.
NOTES: The figure covers 104 countries. Regions marked with (*) have lower country/ populataion coverage than UN Women's criteria of 50 per cent of countries and/ or 66 per cent of population coverage in the region. Data for Australia and New Zealand are for New Zealand only.
Land and water rights for agriculture are closely related.
Data on women’s access to irrigation are limited, and the data available do not paint a clear picture of the gendered patterns of access to irrigation. A recent analysis of the gender gaps in agricultural productivity40 found that female-managed farms are less likely to be irrigated than male- and jointly-managed farms in Ethiopia and Guatemala, but are more likely to be irrigated in Cambodia and Peru. There were no gender gaps in irrigation access in Uganda, but fewer than 2 percent of all farms surveyed in Uganda were irrigated. A sample of five sub-Saharan African countries with time-series data indicate that female-headed households are disadvantaged in access to irrigation when irrigation is more widely available, such as in Ethiopia and Malawi.41 Overall, few farms use irrigation in these countries (Figure 3.7), and gender gaps have not changed appreciably in recent years.
Figure 3.7 Gender gaps in access to irrigation have not changed in recent years
Share of households using irrigation on their farm, by sex of the household head and over time
Clear gender inequalities are evident with regards to decision-making about irrigation technology. A qualitative study from Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania found that women purchased fewer than 10 percent of irrigation pumps and men made most of the major decisions on crop choices and use of income from irrigated crops.42 Similarly, in Sri Lanka men dominated decision-making related to irrigation43 and in Ethiopia, Ghana and the United Republic of Tanzania mechanized irrigation technologies were more frequently applied in plots managed by men, while married women in male-headed households rarely used them on the plots they managed.37
Climate change and environmental degradation driving water scarcity also have different impacts on women and specific ethnic groups. For example, gender-related roles and norms were found to influence women’s vulnerability during the dry season in Burkina Faso, as did ethnic differences in water use.44
Water stress can accelerate rural outmigration, leading to changes in gender relations and power dynamics with respect to water in the household and the community. In Tajikistan, for example, women whose husbands had migrated experienced a considerable increase in demand for their labour, leaving them with less time to participate in agricultural and water user groups.45 In Nepal, women having to manage the irrigation of farms after their husbands had migrated reported increased difficulties in renting pump equipment and tube wells because they did not have the necessary social networks and felt uncomfortable negotiating with well owners.46 The increasing stress on water sources driven by climate change and pollution can also increase the incidence of isolated and larger-scale conflicts over water resources and hamper further the gender equality and women’s empowerment agenda (see Chapter 5).
Livestock ownership is important for reducing poverty among women.47 It also helps to increase household resilience to climate change and associated shocks.48,49 Women who have access to and control over livestock have a higher capacity to improve the health, education and food security of their households.50,51,52 However, women continue to be disadvantaged in livestock ownership. Male-headed households owned more livestock (measured in tropical livestock units)53 than did female-headed households in eight out of ten countries for which data over time are available (Figure 3.8). These gaps have widened in four countries (Ethiopia, Georgia, Mali and Peru).
Figure 3.8 Gender gaps in livestock ownership persist
Average number of tropical livestock units owned by households, by sex of household head and over time
Women continue to be disadvantaged in livestock ownership, particularly OF large ruminants.
Gaps in livestock ownership between female- and male-headed households differ across livestock species. The gender gaps tend to be more consistent for ownership of large ruminants, but there are also gaps in ownership of small ruminants and poultry (Figure 3.9). The gaps in ownership of large ruminants do not appear to be closing over time, and have widened in several countries including Georgia, Mali and Peru; they have narrowed or closed in Ecuador and Guatemala, where the initial gaps were small.
Figure 3.9 Gender gaps in ownership of large ruminants are more consistent, while the trends in the ownership of poultry and small ruminants are more mixed
Average number of large ruminants owned by households, by sex of household head and over time
The trend in gender gaps for poultry is less clear: in four out of ten countries, the gender gaps in poultry ownership have narrowed and in one – Malawi – it has reversed in favour of female-headed households in the most recent survey data available. However, in the other five countries, there are either no changes in the gap in poultry ownership between female- and male-headed households or the gap is widening.
Only six countries have collected individual-level data on ownership and responsibilities over different species of livestock.54 All of them are in Africa and part of the LSMS-ISA initiative.55Figure 3.10 shows the share of women who own different types of livestock out of all women in agricultural households and the share of men who own livestock out of all men in agricultural households. Gender gaps in livestock ownership at the individual level are less clear than the gaps between male- and female-headed households.56
Figure 3.10 Changes in individual livestock ownership vary by type of animal and by sex
NOTE: Incidence = percentage of women/men who own given type of livestock out of all women/men in agricultural households.
More women than men tend to own poultry (Figure 3.10). In the Niger, there was a gender gap in favour of men in 2011 but this had almost closed by 2014, the most recent data available. In Ethiopia, considerably more women than men owned poultry in 2013 but by 2019 the gender gap in favour of women had disappeared. In contrast, the gap in favour of women increased in Malawi, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Taken together, that data suggest that gender gaps in owning livestock are less pronounced than the gender gaps in the number of animals owned.
Country case studies overwhelmingly show the existence of significant differences in the types of livestock women and men own and decisions they control.57 While there are variations across contexts, in general women are more likely to own smaller livestock and poultry than to own cattle and larger livestock.58,59 They are also more likely to keep local breeds.60
Additionally, significant gender gaps in the income derived from livestock sales have been reported,59,61 although this varies depending on the livestock species and product and the level of commercialization. The intensification and increase in commercial orientation of livestock production may change the traditional distribution of rights and responsibilities, with women losing control over livestock species and products they controlled.62 In a study of smallholders conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania, higher profitability of livestock and livestock products was associated with women having less control over the income.63
Case studies also show gender gaps in access to the associated resources needed for livestock production.57,64 Women have less access than men to land and pastures,65,66 fodder and forages,67 water,68 credit,69 technology, information and veterinary services and products, such as vaccines.70,71
Gender gaps in access to improved seeds, fertilizer, extension services and mechanized equipment persist.
Technology
Access to agricultural and agrifood-system technologies is crucial for increasing agricultural productivity and enabling farmers to engage in higher-value chains and nodes and more profitable markets, and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.1 Men and women are equally likely to adopt new technologies when the necessary enabling factors are put in place and they have equal access to productive resources.72 However, women in agriculture have significantly less access than men to inputs, including improved seeds, fertilizer, extension services and training, credit and mechanized equipment.1 A recent systematic review identified 53 studies showing gender gaps existing in access to agricultural resources; 25 of these directly linked women’s limited access to resources to lower productivity of female-managed plots, female farmers or female-headed households compared with their male counterparts,73 in line with the discussion in Chapter 2.
As women increasingly take up employment in off-farm activities, gaps in technologies relevant to non-agricultural segments of agrifood systems are becoming more apparent. For example, the post-harvest physical losses of female fish processors in Zambia are estimated to be three times greater than those of male processors, in large part because women lack access to processing technologies.74
For those countries for which data are available, gender gaps in access to improved seeds and inorganic fertilizer have fluctuated over time and across countries, with little evidence that the gaps are closing (Figure 3.11). In Uganda, the reduced gap in access to improved seeds is driven mainly by fewer male-headed farms using improved seeds in 2014 than in 2010. The story is similar in Ecuador in terms of the use of inorganic fertilizer.
Figure 3.11 Female farmers continue to trail behind men in access to improved seeds and fertilizer
Share of households using improved seed, by sex of the household head and over time
The use of small-scale mechanization in smallholder farming systems is on the rise in various regions in the world, including South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.75,76 The expansion of mechanization can drive substantial changes in agriculture and agrifood systems, including in the type and quality of work performed by men and women.77 The actual changes depend on the type of technology, traditional gender division of labour and whose labour and earnings are affected.78 While mechanization can expand the scale of agricultural production, thereby increasing farmers’ earnings,79 it can also directly replace labour.80 For example, direct seeders, power weeders, harvesters and threshers can mechanize tasks previously carried out by women.81 In India, a 10 percent increase in mechanized tilling between 1999 and 2011 led to a 5 percent reduction in women’s farm labour with no increase in off-farm work because of limited off-farm opportunities for women.82 Thus, while mechanization can generate significant benefits for farmers, including women farmers, it can have significant negative consequences on the livelihoods of specific groups, such as women from ultrapoor backgrounds, landless women, widows and women heads of households.83,84
Conversely, mechanization can also empower women because it can reduce their dependence on men for labour, and allow them to engage in producing “male” crops and pursue other traditionally male activities.75,85 It also helps reduce drudgery, which is disproportionately experienced by women.86 A study from southern Africa showed that the mechanization of land preparation, which is mainly done by men, also reduced the need for weeding, a laborious task often carried out by women in smallholder farms.86 The consequent reduction in time spent on the farm allowed women to spend more time on care and self-maintenance activities, even if this was not associated with an increase in other paid work.86
Despite the potential benefits of mechanization for smallholder agriculture, female farmers continue to lag behind male farmers in accessing and using mechanization. A recent review of data from six countries found that women-managed farms used less agricultural machinery than male- or joint-managed farms in five out of the six countries; the only exception was Peru, where the gap was not statistically significant.40 Female-headed households are significantly less likely to own mechanized equipment than are male-headed households (Figure 3.12). Among the eight countries in the FAO RuLIS database for which data are available over time, the gender gap in mechanization has either increased or remained unchanged except in Ecuador. Reasons for the lower use of mechanization by women include barriers to access capital and complementary inputs and services, lower literacy levels, physical accessibility and, in some contexts, gender-biased sociocultural norms.87,88
Figure 3.12 Gender inequalities in ownership of mechanized equipment are not improving
Share of households that own mechanized equipment, by sex of the household head and over time
Women also commonly have fewer opportunities to receive information on improved agricultural technologies, which in turn affects their ability to adopt and use them.89 A study from Ghana showed that, while men were generally trained on new agricultural technologies directly by extension staff and became early technology adopters, women received information on these technologies through their husbands, which delayed uptake.90
An important barrier for women is that machinery and tools continue to be designed primarily with male farmers and male workers in mind, including for men’s ergonomic characteristics. A study from Ethiopia, Ghana and the United Republic of Tanzania found that women did not typically use motorized pumps because of their technological complexity, the physical strength needed to operate them, and challenges in hiring and supervising labourers.91 In the commercial potato production in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, although women mainly do the potato grading, they were not involved in an evaluation of a machine that automated some of the process; as a consequence it was not adopted because women found it difficult to operate.92 A participatory evaluation approach to assessing adoption of portable flour mills in Bangladesh highlighted the importance of involving women in training sessions.93
Recent evidence also points to the influence of intrahousehold decision-making processes on the adoption of new technologies by men and women.91,94 This includes decisions on how a technology will be used and who in the household will benefit from it, which reflect different interests of male and female members of the household. In Ethiopia, women preferred solar pumps over pumps powered by internal combustion engines as the latter added to their time burden while the former were perceived to reduce domestic and field labour and to contribute to sustaining home-garden crops.91
Uptake of mechanization in off-farm segments of agrifood systems is strongly influenced by male-dominated ownership and management of agribusinesses in most countries. Male owners and managers may have limited incentives to adopt technologies that do not directly increase efficiency and productivity even if such technologies improve health and safety conditions for workers in processing, the majority of whom are women.92 Knowledge gaps remain on relationships between mechanization, gender relations and women’s well-being along entire agrifood value chains.
Extension and Advisory Services
Women remain severely underserved by extension and advisory services across the globe.95,96,97 A smaller share of female-headed households than male-headed households received extension support in four out of six countries with data available for multiple years, with few improvements in recent years (Figure 3.13). A study in Ethiopia found that both female heads of households and female plot-managers are 10 percent less likely to benefit from these services than their male counterparts.98
Figure 3.13 Female farmers continue to have less access to extension services than do men
Share of households with access to extension, by sex of household head and over time
Women within male-headed households are also disadvantaged in access to extension, but individual-level data on this are not routinely collected in household surveys. Data from The Syrian Arab Republic indicated that women, especially young women, had limited access to improved seed and information, even if they played important roles in crop management along the agrifood system.99 Similarly, across developing countries female workers are exposed to significant health problems because they lack information regarding pesticides used and their associated health dangers, even when they make up the majority of workers on commercial farms and plantations.100,101
Stereotypical perceptions of women as carers or helpers can translate into agricultural extension and advisory services being disproportionally delivered to the male heads of households, who are considered the main farmers.102 In some conservative contexts, prevailing social norms mean that male extension officers only engage with male farmers,99 and extension officers are predominantly male in many regions, such as Southeast Asia.103 In Pakistan, women’s access to extension services was found not to be a priority among a largely male-dominated extension workforce.104 Women’s ability to attend and benefit from training sessions or demonstration plots may be limited by several factors, such as social norms around mobility, literacy levels, work burden or asymmetric power dynamics.105 Similarly, some government extension programmes may require beneficiaries to be the owners or managers of certain assets (e.g. fishponds, land), thus potentially discriminating against women.106
Networks and social capital are fundamental for information exchange, agricultural innovation, technology adoption, resource distribution and collective action.1 Increased access to networks and social capital for women has been shown to increase crop yields,107 produce a higher demand for new and innovative technologies108 and facilitate access to information and diversified information sources.109,110 Improved gender parity in group membership and participation is associated with reduced conflict, increased collaboration and improved governance practices, collective knowledge and benefits.111
However, women continue to obtain less information from networks, and their networks tend to be smaller and less influential than those of men.112 Poor women can face more barriers in accessing social capital, as joining and participating in groups requires time and often the payment of fees.113 Across developing regions, household chores and care responsibilities are traditionally assigned to women, often largely confining them to the domestic space and leaving them with limited time to join or participate in groups.109,114,115,116 Further, internally held values and beliefs or imposed psychological constraints (e.g. low self-esteem) also hinder women’s ability to join groups and networks, participate actively and voice their opinions publicly.1,117 Institutional constraints in the formal mechanisms (e.g. requirement of government-issue identification and payment of fees) and informal realms (e.g. biases towards men in community meetings) also limit the extent to which women can join, participate in and fully benefit from groups.118 Moreover, even though women are often involved in women’s social or economic self-help groups, the social and leadership capital they acquire in these women-only settings commonly do not contribute to their acquiring meaningful influence in mixed-gender settings.119
The use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) by advisory services, explained in more detail in the following section, can help overcome some of the problems with traditional extension and advisory services. ICTs can provide rapid and cost-effective dissemination of agricultural information to remote areas in a variety of formats – audio, visual and written – to meet the needs of farmers depending on their levels of education and literacy.
Information and Communications Technologies
The quantity and quality of digital technologies available to farmers and other agrifood-system actors have advanced significantly since the 1990s when modern ICTs – such as mobile phones, personal computers, internet-based services and applications – began to emerge.120
ICTs have the potential to deliver a wide range of economic, environmental and social benefits by increasing access to services in rural areas, reducing transaction costs, optimizing the use of inputs and natural resources, and strengthening resilience to shocks and crises. However, the exponential spread and scale-up of ICTs for agriculture in recent years can also exacerbate existing inequalities. The digital gap between developed and developing countries and between rural and urban areas persists. Rural women in particular are less likely to have access to ICTs or to use them. This is also closely linked to gender differences in access to other infrastructure, especially electricity. Access to electricity is gendered, with men and women having different opportunities to determine how electricity is provided, and who benefits from its use.121 Energy poverty at the household level has wide-ranging negative impacts on women’s welfare in terms of health, time use and employment, and access to information, service and technologies.122
Internet use
Internet use has grown immensely in the last few years: the estimated number of individuals using the internet surged to 5.3 billion in 2022,123 up from an estimated 2.4 billion in 2011.124 In 2022, 63 percent of women globally were using the internet, compared with 69 percent of men (Figure 3.14).125 Internet penetration rates among both men and women have increased in recent years, and the gender gap as a percentage of men’s access to the internet has fallen.
Figure 3.14 Internet access has continued to increase for both men and women while the gender gap has reduced slightly
Internet penetration rates in the world
SOURCE: International Telecommunication Union (various years). Measuring Digital Development: Facts and figures, various years. Geneva, Switzerland, ITU. https://tinyurl.com/2yexx6wy
Africa has the largest gender gap in internet use: 25 percent fewer women than men used the internet in 2022 (Figure 3.15), and the gap has remained constant since 2019. Internet penetration rates for both men and women increase with income and are considerably higher in urban areas than in rural areas.123
Figure 3.15 Gender gaps in internet usage have reduced in all regions but remain particularly high in Africa
Gender gap in internet use, by region
NOTE: CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States
SOURCE: International Telecommunication Union (various years). Measuring Digital Development: Facts and figures, various years. Geneva, Switzerland, ITU. https://tinyurl.com/2yexx6wy
Mobile-phone ownership
Mobile phones accounted for the vast majority of broadband connections across low- and middle-income countries in 2022 according to the latest estimates from the International Telecommunication Union.126 Data on mobile-phone ownership127 collected across low- and middle-income countries since 2017 by the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) show that rates of mobile-phone ownership have stayed relatively stable from 2017 to 2021 for both women and men, and that the gender gap in mobile ownership, while gradually narrowing over time, stood at 7 percent in 2021, corresponding to 372 million women still without mobile-phone devices.128
The gender gap in mobile-phone ownership varies between regions. In 2020, low- and middle-income countries in South Asia had the widest gender gap, with women 19 percent less likely than men to own a mobile phone, followed by sub-Saharan Africa (13 percent) and the Near East and North Africa (9 percent).128 Conversely, a larger share of women than men owned a mobile phone in low- and middle-income countries in Europe and Central Asia.128
Rural women are less likely to own a mobile phone than rural men, according to data from the 2021 GSMA consumer survey.129 Across the ten countries in the survey (Figure 3.16), Pakistan has the highest rural gender gap in mobile-phone ownership at 35 percent, while the gap is lowest in Mexico at only 2 percent.
Figure 3.16 Rural women are less likely than rural men to own a mobile phone
Percentage of women and men in the adult population who own a mobile phone (2021)
NOTE: The gender gap is expressed as a percentage of mobile ownership among men.
SOURCE: Data from Global System for Mobile Communications Association, 2022, FAO analysis
Mobile internet use
Sixty percent of women in low- and middle-income countries in 2021 had access to mobile internet, compared with 44 percent in 2017 (Figure 3.17).128 However, uptake of mobile internet usage by women increased more slowly than that of men since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019. The gender gap is greatest in South Asia (44 percent), followed by sub-Saharan Africa (37 percent), and is least in Latin America and the Caribbean (1 percent) and East Asia and the Pacific (2 percent).
Figure 3.17 Access to mobile internet has increased substantially for both women and men in the last few years, but the gender gap has started to widen again
Percentage of women and men who use the internet on mobile devices in low- and middle-income countries
The gender gaps in mobile internet use in rural areas are larger than the gender gaps in mobile-phone ownership in all ten of the countries in the GSMA survey (Figure 3.18). This is primarily because rural people, and women in particular, are less aware of mobile internet than their urban counterparts in low- and middle-income countries. Even when people in rural areas are aware of mobile internet, a range of barriers prevent its use, including poor literacy and lack of digital skills. These barriers tend to disproportionately affect women and rural populations because of structural inequalities and social norms, which often result in rural women having lower education levels and lower incomes.128 Furthermore, people living in rural areas that are sparsely populated, remote or without access to electricity are less likely to have access to a mobile broadband network than are those living in urban areas. Among the rural populations of the countries in the sample, Bangladesh and Pakistan have the highest gender gaps in mobile internet use (55 percent), while Mexico recorded the smallest (12 percent).
Figure 3.18 The gender gap in mobile internet use in the rural population is higher than that in mobile ownership (2021)
SOURCE: Authors' elaboration with data from Global System for Mobile Communications Association, 2022.
Financial Inclusion
Access to financial services – savings, credit, insurance and payments – increases people’s ability to seek economic opportunities, increase income, save and accumulate assets, and build their resilience and economic security. It also contributes to alleviating discriminatory social norms (see Chapter 6).
Globally, gender gaps in terms of account ownership persist but are narrowing. Across developing economies, the gender gap in account ownership – which had remained for many years at around 9 percentage points – reduced to 6 percentage points in 2021 (74 percent of men compared with 68 percent of women).130 Mobile money accounts are contributing to closing the gender gap in accessing financial services.130
The major constraints to women’s access to financial products and services include lack of resources (e.g. income or assets) and discriminatory social norms and policies.131 Women are also less likely to have the identification documents required to open a bank account.132,133 Demand for insurance is lower among women than men and women tend to acquire lower value coverage,134,135,136 which has been associated with distrust, low financial literacy and gendered exposure to specific risks.134,136
Digitization of financial services offers innovative ways to ensure meaningful financial inclusion. Gender barriers, such as limited mobility or distrust of formal institutions among women, could be addressed through the use of digital tools of the home to improve women’s financial autonomy and privacy.137 Mobile money has facilitated changes in women’s financial behaviour and increased their financial independence; as such, it has contributed to economic empowerment of women.138,139,140 For instance, a cross-country study in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa found a positive impact of adoption of mobile money on women’s economic empowerment in terms of engaging in savings and budget planning.141 Similarly, a study in Kenya139 showed that access to the Kenyan mobile money system M-pesa lifted more than 100 000 households out of poverty, with a greater impact on female-headed households than on male-headed households. It has also helped an estimated 185 000 women to move into business and reduced the necessity for them to work multiple part-time jobs.
However, women continue to lag behind men in access to mobile money accounts and the use of digital payments among account owners.130 In 2021, 8 percent of women worldwide had a mobile money account, compared with 12 percent of men. The incidence of mobile account holders is highest in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high-income countries), where 30 percent of women and 36 percent of men have mobile money accounts.
Globally, gender gaps in terms of account ownership persist but are narrowing.
SPOTLIGHT 3.4 SOCIAL PROTECTION
Social protection has great potential for promoting women’s economic empowerment and reducing gender inequalities, including those in human capital development and access to and control over income and assetsi (see also Chapter 6).
Social protection is a key risk management tool for rural women and men. Social protection programmes are highly effective in enhancing household welfare across a number of dimensions, including providing relief from deprivation, helping avert deprivation, enhancing livelihoods and productive capabilities, and fostering socioeconomic inclusion and equality.ii,iii However, such programmes may have different degrees of gender focus, and they largely do not address the root causes of gender inequality such as norms and power relations.iv
Globally, 26.5 percent of working-age women are legally covered by existing legislation with comprehensive social protection systems compared with 34.3 percent of men.v Lower legal coverage among women is largely due to higher levels of informality in agriculture and other sectors, as well as lower labour-force participation and the type of work women do.v As seen in Chapter 2, a large share of rural women in farming households contribute unpaid and largely unrecognized labour to family enterprises. If a woman does not have land registered in her name – a common occurrence in many countries as explained earlier in this chapter – she may be excluded from existing social insurance schemes for farmers.vi
Rural women may face barriers to accessing cash transfers or public-works entitlements because of lack of time, poverty or constraints or norms that lead to discrimination and their marginalization or limit their access to resources, including transportation.vii Every aspect of social protection programmes, including targeting, conditionality and payment and transfer mechanisms, can have implications on gender power relations, equality and women’s empowerment and welfare.viii Participation in social protection programmes can also influence the incidence of intimate partner violence (see Box 3.5).
Targeting and gender of recipient
Women are often the intended beneficiaries of social protection programmes, either as heads of household, facing gender-specific risks (e.g. pregnant and lactating women) or in their capacity as mothers and care-givers. The last of these was the rationale behind the practice of giving cash directly to women in conditional cash transfer programmes in Latin America since the late 1990s.iii,ix,x,xi However, this approach can reinforce traditional gender stereotypes that assign more care responsibilities to women and can also exacerbate women’s workloads.xi In addition, the few studies that test whether the gender of the recipient matters find little or no difference in impacts on household welfare whether cash is given to women or to men.xii,xiii,xiv,xv Simply targeting women does not automatically enhance gender equality and empowerment.xvi Women may still face constraints to controlling the use of the money if they have weak bargaining power and authority, limited confidence or lack financial and functional literacy.xvi,xvii,xviii
Conditionalities
Women are usually responsible for fulfilling the conditions imposed by some social protection programmes in order to receive benefits, such as taking their children to regular health check-ups and attending trainings on nutrition, because of their roles as mothers or primary carers.xi While evidence on the impact of conditional cash transfers on household and child well-being mostly finds positive effects, imposing conditions on receiving benefits can have unintended effects such as increasing women’s time poverty, perpetuating the stereotype of unpaid care and domestic work being women’s responsibility, punishing prospective beneficiaries if they lose access to benefits due to non-compliance, or side-lining women’s needs altogether.xix,xx,xxi
Registration and delivery modalities
Women can face barriers to registering for social protection programmes if the procedures used to identify and enrol potential programme beneficiaries are not gender-sensitive. Registration and payment mechanisms that require applicants to travel far from their homes can limit women’s access to such programmes because of the costs they impose in terms of both time and money. Other barriers include requiring identification documents that women disproportionately lack, providing written information on targeting and enrolment processes that demand a higher level of literacy than most women have or other constraints related to cultural norms.xi While electronic payments may be an effective mechanism to increase women’s financial inclusion, the expansion of digital delivery mechanisms of social protection may also exclude rural women disproportionately, as such women may be less likely than rural men to own phones,xxii as also discussed in this chapter.
Cash plus/complementary interventions and supply-side services
Increasing emphasis in recent years has been placed on combining social protection interventions with complementary services, resources or activities. Such programmes often fall under the umbrella of so-called multifaceted economic inclusion programmes.xxiii Gender focus is very common in economic inclusion programmes: 88 percent of more than 200 such programmes surveyed by the World Bank prioritized female participants and a majority focused on rural livelihoods.xxiii
Economic inclusion programmes involve a variety of modalities. “Cash plus” programmes – complementing cash transfers with other interventions – can be used to strengthen other aspects of well-being such as health, nutrition or reproductive healthxxiv and can include many different elements, such as behavioural change communication, strengthening productive activities, health insurance, financial inclusion or psychosocial support.
Applying a gender-sensitive approach to linking social protection to other services has the potential to improve gender equality. Transfers can be linked with skills training and child-care support to improve women’s employability or with services that increase women’s agricultural production and income-generation and support enterprise development and livelihood diversification.xi For instance, two of the largest public-works programmes in the world, the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, stipulate the provision of crèche facilities for young children for women involved in the schemes.i
While it is well recognized that resource transfers alone are often not sufficient to empower women, it is less well understood what complementary elements can effectively drive women’s empowerment and transformative change.xxv There are several examples of positive impacts on women’s income-generation, savings, assets and/or psychosocial well-being from multifaceted economic inclusion programmes.xxvi,xxvii,xxviii Multifaceted programmes can be very complex and their design is often context specific, which can make scale-up more challenging than that of simple social protection programmes.
NOTES:
Holmes, R. & Jones, N. 2013. Gender and social protection in the developing world: Beyond mothers and safety nets. London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Beegle, K., Coudouel, A. & Monsalve, E. 2018. Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa. Africa Development Forum series. Washington, DC, World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1164-7.
Davis, B., Handa, S., Hypher, N., Rossi, N.W., Winters, P. & Yablonski, J. 2016. From evidence to action: The story of cash transfers and impact evaluation in sub Saharan Africa. Oxford University Press.
Jones, N. 2021. Gender and social protection. In: E. Schüring & M. Loewe, eds. Handbook on social protection systems. Elgar Handbooks in Social Policy and Welfare. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109119
ILO. 2021. World Social Protection Report 2020–22: Social protection at the crossroads in pursuit of a better future. Geneva, Switzerland.
FAO. 2022. Improving social protection for rural populations in Europe and Central Asia – Priorities for FAO. Budapest. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1925en
FAO. 2018. FAO Technical Guide 1 – Introduction to gender-sensitive social protection programming to combat rural poverty: Why is it important and what does it mean? Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/CA2026EN/ca2026en.pdf
Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A. & Gilligan, D.O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1903. Washington, DC, IFPRI. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133551
Bonilla, J., Zarzur, R.C., Handa, S., Nowlin, C., Peterman, A., Ring, H., Seidenfeld, D. & Team, Z.C.G.P.E. 2017. Cash for women’s empowerment? A mixed-methods evaluation of the Government of Zambia’s child grant program. World Development, 95: 55–72.
de la O Campos, A.P. 2015. Empowering rural women through social protection. Rural Transformations – Technical Papers Series #2. Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i4696e/i4696e.pdf
Akresh, R., De Walque, D. & Kazianga, H. 2016. Evidence from a randomized evaluation of the household welfare impacts of conditional and unconditional cash transfers given to mothers or fathers. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7730. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B.A. & Sverdlin-Lisker, D. 2022. Social protection in the developing world. Working paper. https://tinyurl.com/2cz424hf
Benhassine, N., Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P. & Pouliquen, V. 2015. Turning a shove into a nudge? A" labeled cash transfer" for education. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(3): 86–125.
Haushofer, J. & Shapiro, J. 2016. The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4): 1973–2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025
Handa, S., Peterman, A., Davis, B. & Stampini, M. 2009. Opening up Pandora’s box: The effect of gender targeting and conditionality on household spending behavior in Mexico’s Progresa program. World Development, 37(6): 1129–1142.
Yoong, J., Rabinovich, L. & Diepeveen, S. 2012. The impact of economic resource transfers to women versus men: A systematic review. Technical Report. London, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Jenson, J. 2009. Lost in translation: The social investment perspective and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 16(4): 446–483. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxp019
Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A. & Gilligan, D.O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01903. Washington, DC, IFPRI.
Soares, F.V. & Silva, E. 2010. Conditional cash transfer programmes and gender vulnerabilities in Latin America: Case studies from Brazil, Chile and Colombia. London, Overseas Development Institute.
Klugman, J., Kellison, E. & Ortiz, E. 2021. Mobile phone technologies as an opportunity for women’s financial inclusion: What does the evidence say? In: E. Lechman, ed. Technology and women’s empowerment. Abingdon, UK, Taylor & Francis.
Andrews, C., de Montesquiou, A., Sánchez, I.A., Dutta, P.V., Samaranayake, S., Heisey, J., Clay, T. & Chaudhary, S. 2021. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The potential to scale. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34917-
Carter, B., Roelen, K., Enfield, S. & Avis, W. 2019. Social protection topic guide, revised edition. K4D Emerging Issues Report. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies.
Chang, W., Diaz-Martin, L., Gopalan, A., Guarnieri, E., Jayachandran, S. & Walsh, C. 2020. What works to enhance women’s agency: Cross-cutting lessons from experimental and quasi-experimental studies. J-PAL Working Paper.
Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B., Karlan, D., Kazianga, H., Parienté, W., Premand, P.et al. 2022. Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature, 605: 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8
Karimli, L., Bose, B. & Kagotho, N. 2020. Integrated graduation program and its effect on women and household economic well-being: Findings from a randomised controlled trial in Burkina Faso. The Journal of Development Studies, 56(7): 1277–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1677887
Bedoya, G., Coville, A., Haushofer, J., Isaqzadeh, M. & Shapiro, J.P. 2019. No household left behind: Afghanistan targeting the ultra poor impact evaluation. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 8877. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://tinyurl.com/2xzglljn
BOX 3.5 CASH TRANSFERS AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
The provision of cash transfers directly to beneficiaries, a common form of social protection, can affect intimate partner violence (IPV) via three pathways: i) economic security and emotional well-being, ii) intrahousehold conflict and iii) women’s empowerment.i
Improving economic security and emotional well-being can reduce poverty-related stress and consequently IPV. However, availability of cash can increase IPV if the money is spent on temptation goods like alcohol and tobacco or if spouses do not agree on how to spend the money. The effect of availability of cash on women’s empowerment and consequent IPV depends on the partner’s reaction to shifts in relationship power. Cash can reduce IPV if men are accepting of their spouses’ empowerment and increase their appreciation of her worth. However, if men feel threatened, they may perpetrate more violence to maintain the power status quo in the relationship.
Most evidence shows that cash transfers either reduce or do not influence IPV in low- and middle-income countries, although some increases in reported IPV have been observed among some subgroups.ii Four of five social safety net programmes studied in Africa reported decreases in experience and intensity (frequency) of IPV.iii In Bangladesh, women who received cash or food together with nutrition behaviour change communication experienced less physical IPV.iv Cash, vouchers or food given to low-income households in northern Ecuador reduced physical and sexual IPV and controlling behaviours by increasing women’s subjective well-being, self-confidence and decision-making power.ii, v, vi
In the Oportunidades/Prospera conditional cash transfer programme in Mexico, women beneficiaries suffered less physical abuse but received more threats of violence in the medium-term.vii While these effects did not last in the long-term, legal reforms around divorce eased women’s exit from violent relationships, especially among those who were beneficiaries of the Oportunidades programme.viii, ix Household structure and position within the household may mediate the impacts of cash programmes on gender equality. A national cash transfer programme in Mali reduced women’s reported experiences of emotional IPV, physical IPV and controlling behaviours in polygamous households, but had limited effects in monogamous households.x The effects were particularly strong among second and subsequent wives, who experience the highest rates of violence in the absence of intervention. Participation in the programme reduced stress and anxiety among male members of recipient households, and this resulted in reductions in reported disputes.x The Government of Ghana’s flagship Livelihoods Against Poverty 1000 programme reduced experiences of physical, sexual and emotional violence among women in monogamous households, but not in polygamous households.xi Increased economic security and empowerment of women were important mechanisms contributing to these impacts. The programme reduced conflict and violence: women in polygamous and non-polygamous households stated that they did not need to ask or rely on their husbands for money as often, thereby mitigating potential tensions with their spouses xii than that of simple social protection programmes.XII
NOTES:
Buller, A.M., Peterman, A., Ranganathan, M., Bleile, A., Hidrobo, M. & Heise, L. 2018. A mixed-method review of cash transfers and intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 33(2): 218–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky002
Baranov, V., Cameron, L., Contreras Suarez, D. & Thibout, C. 2021. Theoretical underpinnings and meta-analysis of the effects of cash transfers on intimate partner violence in low-and middle-income countries. The Journal of Development Studies, 57(1): 1–25.
Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A. & Gilligan, D.O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1903. Washington, DC, IFPRI. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133551
Roy, S., Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J. & Ahmed, A. 2019. Transfers, behavior change communication, and intimate partner violence: Postprogram evidence from rural Bangladesh. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5): 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00791
Hidrobo, M., Peterman, A. & Heise, L. 2016. The effect of cash, vouchers, and food transfers on intimate partner violence: Evidence from a randomized experiment in northern Ecuador. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(3): 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150048
Buller, A.M., Hidrobo, M., Peterman, A. & Heise, L. 2016. The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach?: a mixed methods study on causal mechanisms through which cash and in-kind food transfers decreased intimate partner violence. BMC public health, 16: 1-13
Bobonis, G.J., González-Brenes, M. & Castro, R. 2013. Public transfers and domestic violence: The roles of private information and spousal control. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(1): 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.1.179
Bobonis, G.J., Castro, R. & Morales, J.S. 2015. Conditional cash transfers for women and spousal violence: evidence of the long-term relationship from the Oportunidades Program in rural Mexico. IDB Working Paper Series No. IDB-WP-632. Washington, DC, Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0000201
Bobonis, G.J., Castro, R. & Morales, J.S. 2020. Legal reforms, conditional cash transfers, and intimate partner violence: Evidence from Mexico. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
Heath, R., Hidrobo, M. & Roy, S. 2020. Cash transfers, polygamy, and intimate partner violence: Experimental evidence from Mali. Journal of Development Economics, 143: 102410.
Peterman, A., Valli, E. & Palermo, T. 2022. Government antipoverty programming and intimate partner violence in Ghana. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 70(2): 529–566. https://doi.org/10.1086/713767
Barrington, C., Peterman, A., Akaligaung, A.J., Palermo, T., de Milliano, M. & Aborigo, R.A. 2022. ‘Poverty can break a home’: Exploring mechanisms linking cash plus programming and intimate partner violence in Ghana. Social Science & Medicine, 292: 114521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114521
