Document Type: Briefs

This brief is designed to help USAID Missions, Operating Units, and implementing partners understand the concept of water tenure in the context of programs that seek to improve food and water security and address climate change. The brief highlights how incorporating water tenure considerations can contribute to improving water resource governance and management.

The concept of water tenure is relatively new, with the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) initiating discussions on the topic in 2013 at an expert consultation on water governance and the role of tenure and rights in coping with agricultural water scarcity. Following the consultation, FAO published a discussion paper in 2016, which conceptualized water tenure as, “the relationship, whether legal or customarily defined, between people, as individuals or groups, with respect to water resources.” Water tenure focuses on the use of freshwater resources from both groundwater and surface water bodies, like rivers and streams.

Key Findings

How does rural out-migration affect tropical forests and rural livelihoods? Migration out of rural landscapes has important consequences for the persistence and conservation of forests and forestbased resources in the global South. Ensuring that tropical forests are protected and remain ecologically functional will determine whether humans are able to avert catastrophic disruptions to food, water, and energy systems caused by climate change. In some instances, out-migration reduces pressure on forests and forest-based resources and allows for limited natural regeneration of forests in abandoned agricultural parcels. However, in other cases, rapid out-migration of able-bodied laborers weakens local customary land and forest tenure institutions, leading to the mismanagement of forests and an erosion in cultural norms surrounding sustainable use of forest-based resources. Moreover, in most cases, rural out-migration threatens the persistence of rural livelihoods as depopulation results in the loss of ablebodied laborers and subsequent reductions in agricultural production.

The variability in forest outcomes following out-migration makes it difficult to draw broad generalizations from the diverse and disparate case studies available, especially due to the lack of high quality, interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary studies that couple longitudinal analyses of demographic change with household surveys, spatial data analysis, and ecological surveys of forest condition.

However, some recurring themes and patterns do emerge and can help inform evidence-based interventions that are tailored to a particular geographic region. The recommendations outlined below are not exhaustive and should be carefully considered in the context of local customs, norms, histories, and socioeconomic conditions – if properly implemented, these interventions could increase rural livelihood security and improve forest condition and management.

1. Protect and promote forest regeneration through active management – while most landscapes are unlikely to return to pre-disturbance biodiversity levels and ecosystem functioning, these landscapes can provision some ecosystem services including aboveground carbon storage and habitat for wildlife. One possible mechanism to implement this recommendation is through the provision of direct incentives to rural smallholders to actively manage and protect regenerating forests on abandoned agricultural land. These incentives could be created through payments for ecosystem services schemes, carbon finance, or government programs.
2. Strengthen customary and communal tenure institutions so that they can adapt to the loss of local participants while still actively managing forests for sustainable use. Labor scarcity and the erosion of cultural norms brought on by rural out-migration threatens the persistence of customary forest and land tenure institutions. Supporting local communities as they build adaptive capacity will be critical to ensure that they continue to manage forests for sustainable use and buffer against the encroachment of large-scale commercial interests. Case studies from Oaxaca, Mexico (Robson & Berkes, 2011) demonstrate that it is possible to build adaptive capacity in customary forest tenure institutions by allowing for flexibility in participation and by ensuring that community members have access to resources for managing forests with a reduced pool of laborers.
3. Invest in agricultural extension programs that increase livelihood security for rural smallholders while empowering individuals in their choice to migrate out of or remain on their land. Migration of able-bodied laborers is leading to labor scarcity and a reduction in the cultivation of agricultural land. Subsidies for key agricultural inputs and incentives for crop production would ameliorate some of the pressure caused by out-migration and the loss of laborers for those smallholders who actively choose to continue inhabiting rural landscapes. By providing incentives for smallholders to sustainably intensify their production, these populations can act as a buffer against large-scale land acquisitions for commercial production.
4. Invest in improvements in basic services in rural landscapes; access to quality education, health care, and off-farm employment opportunities is needed to empower rural smallholders to make the choice to stay or leave. Protecting rural livelihoods is an important strategy to ensure protection and conservation of tropical forests in conjunction with strong environmental protection policies. While improvements in socioeconomic status or livelihood security of rural smallholders may also lead to an increase in out-migration, investment in improving basic services ensures that individuals and families who wish to remain on their land are better supported in their choice.
5. Invest in supporting women-headed households in certain rural landscapes where men make up the majority of outmigrants. Investments in improving tenure security of rural landholdings and supporting the participation of women in customary tenure institutions and both on-farm and off-farm livelihood opportunities can help to alleviate pressure on women-headed households where out-migration is primarily of able-bodied men. Case studies from Nepal (Jacquet et al., 2015) and Oaxaca (Angelsen et al., 2020) point to a lack of support for women-headed households in areas where out-migration of men has shifted the burden of maintaining and cultivating rural landholdings to women. Subsequent loss of productive agricultural land due to labor scarcity is in some cases increasing the socioeconomic precarity of these households and increasing pressure on forest-based resources.

USAID’s response to the global climate crisis prioritizes the meaningful participation of critical populations–including women, youth, and other marginalized and underrepresented groups–to achieve targeted direct action and systems change. Climate finance offers a pathway to achieve equitable climate action and support a transition to a low-carbon future. Yet, most climate finance to date has been gender-neutral, failing to capture the specific roles and needs of women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals in achieving climate goals.

Women and girls are disproportionately affected by natural and climate disasters when compared to their male counterparts. Furthermore, research suggests that gender-diverse individuals face increased risk of discrimination due to their gender identity. To ensure equitable climate action outcomes, climate finance must explicitly consider the gendered impacts of climate change and gendered disparities in access to finance.

Examples of gender-responsive climate finance include:

• Providing businesses owned by women and gender-diverse individuals with equitable access to financing for climate adaptation and mitigation investments, for example by offering grants for first-loss capital or tailored loan products;
• Increasing access to climate products or services (e.g., climate-linked insurance), particularly those that disproportionately benefit women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals;
• Providing access to climate mitigation products or services where women and girls are primary stakeholders or beneficiaries (e.g., transitioning from solid or fossil fuels to cleaner household energy sources);
• Investing in climate-impacted sectors—such as agriculture, fisheries, and forestry—where women and girls are primary stakeholders (e.g., beneficiaries, producers);
• Ensuring social safeguards in climate investments that address women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals’ access to decision-making over the use of land resources, equitable benefit sharing, and property rights;
• Investing in climate-impacted or climate-related companies where women constitute at least 30% of senior management or board seats; and
• Investing in climate-impacted or climate-related companies where women and girls constitute at least 30% of employees and the company has committed to reporting on gender equality.

The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Integrated Land and Resource Governance (ILRG) program has supported customary land documentation in the Eastern Province of Zambia in nine chiefdoms in Chipata and Petauke Districts, covering 30,000 parcels of land. The program promotes gender integration in the land documentation process and ensures that women’s land rights are registered and their interests and priorities are addressed. Land is the main asset for the rural poor who depend on agriculture-based livelihoods, and as such, documentation provides individuals with more secure tenure rights, reducing potential disputes and increasing the incentive to invest in their plots without fear of eviction. While customary land in Zambia cannot be used as collateral, documentation can increase people’s confidence that they will be able to collect their harvest at the end of the year and hence have access to income, which can enhance their financial security. 

 

This USAID Issue Brief on Environmental Defenders provides an introduction to the range of issues facing environmental defenders worldwide, followed by a discussion of key areas of engagement and donor support that demonstrate possible responses to protect the rights and well-being of environmental defenders.

Environmental defenders are people who “take a stand and peaceful action against the unjust, discriminatory, corrupt, or damaging exploitation of natural resources or the environment.”[1] They are made up of diverse groups and individuals, including Indigenous Peoples, rural communities, local conservation and forest monitors, environmental activists, human rights advocates, journalists, lawyers, and women and youth leaders.

The grievances of environmental defenders are enmeshed in broader governance challenges—including many areas of continuing focus for USAID programming and core USAID policy concerns, such as the Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, Biodiversity Policy, Climate Strategy 2022-2030, Policy on Promoting the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, and the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption.

Unfortunately, environmental defenders are under threat. In 2020, there were 227 reported killings of environmental defenders, a rate of nearly 5 per week, and the worst year on record. Global Witness and its partners documented 2,177 killings of environmental defenders from 2002-2022. [2] The actual numbers are very likely higher as some deaths go unreported by official sources or the circumstances are difficult to verify.

Sources:

[1] Global Witness. 2021. Last Line of Defence: The Industries Causing the Climate Crisis and Attacks Against Land and Environmental Defenders.

[2] Ibid.