1. Access and Control over Land in Rwanda An Intrahousehold Analysis Florence Santos, Diana Fletschner and Vivien Savath March 2014

2. 2 Women’s Secure Rights to Land Important for their own well being Important for their families’ well being Important for their communities Important for their countries Yet, in most African countries, rural women do not have secure rights to land:  Their rights are not always recognized  Their rights are not always enforceable  Their rights are often vulnerable

3. 3 Revamped Legal Frameworks In the past two decades there has been considerable improvements: African Union Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy Constitutions: Eg., Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa, Namibia. Land or Property Rights Laws: Eg., Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Kenya. Family Codes: Eg., Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia.

4. 4 Rwanda’s Impressive Land-Related Reform 2003 Constitution 2004 National Land Policy 2005 Organic Land Law Ongoing country-wide Land Tenure Regularization Program BUT:  Constitution and Family code only recognize legal marriages  OLL mistranslation of man and woman to husband and wife  Gap between customs and laws can affect implementation.

5. 5 Has Rwanda’s Impressive Land-Related Reform Improved Women’s Rights to Land? It is probably too soon to tell, but we can look at: women’s involvement in land-related decisions (an empirical proxy for access and control) using data from 2013

6. 6 Land-Related Decisions  Usufruct Decisions  How will land be used?  Which crops will be sold?  How are proceeds from the crops going to be used?  Transaction Decisions  Will land be sold?  Will land be rented?  Will land be offered as collateral?  How are the proceeds from these transactions going to be used?  Inheritance Decisions  Who will inherit the land?

7. 7 Land-Related Decisions  Decision-makers may vary by plot  Households can have multiple plots  Rather than yes/no involvement, we use: the share of total household land over which she is involved in land-related decisions (indirect measures of her bargaining power within the household)  Involvement in decision-making may vary systematically:  by gender  by type of household

8. 8 Legally Married Monogamous Households

9. 9

10. 10 Cohabiting Monogamous Couples

11. 11 Polygamous Households

12. 12 What does this tell us?  Involvement in land-related decision-making varies by gender, by type of decision, by type of household  Women tend to have less decision-making authority than men  Gender-pattern is not homogeneous: -Monogamous households have more joint decision-making -Polygamous households have more segregated decision-making  Women in cohabiting monogamous couples are most vulnerable (their households tend to have less land, they tend to have less bargaining power within their households)  Largest gender gap in decision-making: inheritance decisions

13. 13 What factors are associated with a woman’s involvement in land-related decision-making? A supportive legal framework is necessary but may not be sufficient. Data based on 255 men and 340 women from 255 households in 4 cells of Musanze District. Factors that we considered:  Marital status (type of household, has bride price been paid?)  Woman’s characteristics ( age, literacy, # of dependents, whether she has sons, whether she inherited land)  Husband’s characteristics (age, literacy, knowledge of women’s land rights)  Household’s characteristics (total amount of land, overall wealth)  Women’s vulnerability to losing land (based on her husband’s perceptions of community norms)

14. 14 What factors are associated with a woman’s involvement in land-related decision-making?

15. 15 Recommendations  Ensure that all women’s rights to land, regardless of their marital status, are protected under the law by adjusting laws, regulations, processes.  Information campaigns to ensure women, their partners, their families and their communities are aware of these rights.  Build capacity of government officials, traditional leaders, service providers and dispute resolution authorities. Successful examples of gender-sensitive efforts to bridge the gap between law and practice:  CARE’s legal-awareness work in Rwanda  Kenya’s Access to Justice Project.

16. 16 Thank you!