The challenge of HIV/AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? - World ...

Chapter 22: Women, land and trees175It is also essential to consider the robustnessof rights, that is, their ability to withstandchallenges from others. For example,in Mozambique, Vijfhuizen et al. (2003)found that women do not usually planttrees when they live in their husband’sfamily homestead because they do notfeel they have secure tenure there. However,they do plant trees when they moveto an independent homestead with theirhusbands, or when they are allocatedtheir own land by the chief or in-laws. Inthe case of women’s rights over land, weoften find (particularly in SSA), that womenacquire the right to cultivate land fromtheir husbands, fathers or sons, but theircontrolling or decision-making rights arerestricted. This is especially problematicfor agroforestry, because planting trees is amanagement (decision-making) right that isoften restricted to landowners, particularlymale ones. Moreover, if women acquirerights through a man, their rights are highlydependent on their relationship with thatman and, if they become widowed or divorced,they may lose those rights. Evenwhen married women have land use rights,they often have to get permission from theirhusband to plant a tree. As a result, femaleheadedhouseholds with land may be morelikely than women in male-headed householdsto adopt agroforestry, because theyhave more autonomy (Gladwin et al. 2002;Hansen et al. 2005).Many analyses of land rights focus on themain agricultural plots or on residentialand commercial property. To understandwomen’s property rights, and particularlytheir rights over trees, it is essential to lookbeyond these to consider tenure and treeswithin the whole landscape. In many cases,common lands (which may be officially designatedas community or state property) areimportant sources of trees and tree products,particularly for women. For example, in thePhilippines, Flora (2001) found that womendepended on the commons more heavilythan men for domestic and market-orientedproduction, but men’s interests tended toprevail where markets had developed, bothin crop production and in land tenure, andwomen often lost access when land wasprivatized.Rocheleau and Edmunds (1997) drawattention to the importance of such ‘interstitialspaces’ as homesteads and patiogardens (trees planted between the houseand fields), hedgerows (trees or bushes betweenfields and roads or other fields), andinter-cultivation of annual crops betweenplanted trees in fields. These areas producevaluable products, such as wood, fodder,vegetables, medicines and wild foods; butthis type of production may be ignored bygovernment statistics or even by researchers.Interstitial spaces are particularly importantfor people who have little controlover the main farmland. In addition to theirproductive and livelihood values, they playimportant ecological roles, particularly inwatersheds, where stream banks, hedgerowsand wetlands act as filters and sinksfor reducing water pollution and controllingsoil erosion (Swallow et al. 2001).Rights over these interstitial spaces areoften not clearly defined, partly becausethey are boundary areas and attempts todefine them may generate conflict. Onthe one hand, unclear rights give accessto the landless, but on the other, it meansthat responsibilities are also not clearly defined.Thus, it is important to consider howmen and women relate to these interstitialresources, both in terms of their use of theproducts and their involvement in maintainingthe resource.Another important complication in rightsover land and trees arises from the multiplesources of claims for property rights. Statetitle is only one (albeit important) source ofproperty rights and it is one to which manyAfricans have no access. However, claimsmay also be based on a range of customaryor religious laws or even local norms. Forexample, a country may have laws specifyingthat all children are entitled to inheritan equal share of assets from their parents,while Islamic law specifies that daughtersreceive half the share of sons, and localnorms may prescribe that women shouldnot cultivate their land, but give it to theirbrothers. Even where there is agreementon rights, it may be difficult for people tophysically use their claims, particularly inthe face of social pressures. On the otherhand, men and women use their socialconnections to access land and the labourto farm it, particularly for agroforestry.Thus, both state law and local norms, particularlythe interplay of gender and powerrelations, play a crucial role in shapingwomen’s rights to land and trees.Figure 1 illustrates how state law and genderrelations are linked to women’s rightsover land and trees, and how these, in turn,are linked to access to inputs, agroforestryadoption, agricultural productivity andhousehold welfare.Sources of change in women’srights over land and treesIn spite of their complexity, property rightsare highly dynamic; they change over time,as a result of external and women’s ownactions. Most of the linkages are two-wayrelationships. For example, women’s landrights may influence agroforestry adoption,but agroforestry adoption can also affectland tenure. Similarly, changes in householdincome or welfare can have feedbackeffects on women’s rights to resources.Figure 2 illustrates how each of the links towomen’s rights over resources can become