The Conceptual Framework is designed to identify core issues that shape the discussions around women’s tenure security and to suggest critical dimensions that should be included in analyses of women’s tenure security. The Framework also attempts to develop shared definitions and concepts to facilitate aggregation of the lessons from individual analyses and case studies. In addition, because women’s tenure security is not static, the framework identifies the types of factors that may change women’s tenure security, both to strengthen it and to undermine it.
We are thrilled to have translated it. While a majority of the research that is widely available and used for comparative purposes is written in English, many practitioners working on issues related to women’s land tenure security and collecting information about what works and what does not are Spanish speakers. To encourage the sharing of information and lessons learned, we need a common understanding of what we mean by women’s land tenure security. And a common understanding requires translating the Framework into multiple languages.
Most of the work on women’s land tenure security occurs in countries located in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We will be translating the Framework into three languages commonly spoken in these areas of the world to cover as many countries as possible: Spanish, French, and Portuguese. While we have not yet translated the Framework into as many languages as we would like (for example, Mandarin and others common in Asia), we hope in the future to be able to translate it into as many languages as possible as the funding becomes available.
We look forward to sharing the Framework with all of the researchers and practitioners for whom English is not their working language, and to continuing to build a robust community around women’s land rights.
To access the Spanish-language version of “ Women’s Land Tenure Security: A Conceptual Framework” click here.
Last month I was fortunate to attend the inaugural World Bank Conference on Gender and Extractives. The event attracted attendees from civil society, government, and companies, and was an important forum for these diverse groups to engage in meaningful and valuable dialogue. I welcomed the opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences with others who understand the importance of centering gender in our natural resources work, as this dialogue is critically important to understanding the gaps and identifying promising strategies to realize gender equitable investments.
I was struck by the many commonalities across geographies. I heard, repeatedly, about the resistance people face when working on gender, such as having to make the case for why the issue is important or hearing the worry that working on gender deprioritizes other issues.
One important theme that emerged was the observation that, while we need cultural sensitivity and understanding, we shouldn’t let this be an excuse to not work on these issues. Rural women use land and natural resources to play a critically important economic role within their families and communities, yet extractives projects often exacerbate existing social and economic barriers that leave women less well-off and less able to cope with the changes that such projects bring. It is, therefore, vitally important that we ensure that extractives projects do not replicate these barriers, but find ways to work towards equity and equality.
In many presentations, I heard about policies that are good on paper but not in practice, such as consultation requirements that don’t actually engage all affected groups. The conclusion from these sessions is clear: policies are important, but without more—better assessments to support better-informed implementation, increased capacity, proactive efforts to give women a seat at the table—women are unlikely to share in the benefits of extractive investments and could end up worse off as a result of a project.