Titling customary tenure: women lose out

The main thrust of the paper “Titling of customary tenure is not a fix for women’s land rights: a review of evidence and practice” (2020, 28pp) by Margaret Rugadya, a Ugandan development economist, is that titling is inept at safeguarding women’s land rights on customary tenure. Intentionally or unintentionally, titling is unable to uphold favourable pre-existing claims and “rights” of women on customary tenure that are already socially recognised by traditional norms. These are often lost, modified or erased as customary tenure gains formality. Neither the replacement theorists nor the adaptation or the hybrid theories favours women’s land rights, as none anticipate the existence of embedded and functional women’s role-related, legitimate social “rights” or claims as part of the bundle of rights under customary tenure. It is therefore illusionary to expect titling to advance women’s land rights, since none of its processes or tools is cognisant of this distinct category of rights on customary tenure.

Instead, the titling process formalises inequity in land rights, by creating new rights for men at the expense of women by worsening existing vulnerabilities of and creating “new additional conditions” that intensify the loss of rights for women, hence deteriorating tenure relations that previously held limited favour for women on customary tenure.

Review of seven pilot projects in northern Uganda shows that women’s land rights are best negotiated at individual households with partners within a family or homestead, even though agreements to restructure such rights are often reached between partners at this stage, they easily crumble under peer pressure from males in extended families and clans and intimidation or threats meted out to women. Innovation, awareness creation, exchange and learning ameliorate the situation. However, the challenge is the majority of the titling projects do not anticipate the embedded nature of social rights in land accorded to women under customary tenure, hence an absence of methods and tools to capture them. Accepting that form (non-absolute) and function (use for household welfare) is the basis for the definition of tenure rights for women in a socio-cultural and ecological mode is part of the solution for a more inclusive titling process on customary tenure.

For a copy of the full paper, of which the above is the abstract, please contact the author: agabamr@gmail.com

Posted on 2 July 2020 in Pastoralism, Gender & Youth, Pastoralism, Policy & Power