Today I discovered an absolutely fascinating article that focuses on the intersection of two of my personal interests: Rural living and women’s rights. The article focuses on the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the United Nations in 1979. As such, it is worth noting at the outset of this post that, as of this month, 185 countries have ratified CEDAW. The United States joins the ranks of Iran and Sudan as the small minority of countries that have rejected the treaty, which is known worldwide as a “Bill of Rights” for women. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the Western Hemisphere and the only industrialized democracy that has not ratified the treaty, a process which requires a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate.
If you would like more information on why the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, read the “Fear vs. Fact” primer compiled by the American Bar Association.
Lisa Pruitt, a professor of law at the University of California-Davis, wrote the essay titled, “Migration, Development and the Promise of CEDAW for Rural Women,” which was presented at the Michigan Journal of International Law’s “Territory without Boundaries” symposium. In particular, Pruitt focuses on Article 14 of CEDAW and how its goals can be achieved in a world that is increasingly becoming more urban.
An understanding of rural-to-urban migration dynamics illuminates the way in which migration alters the circumstances of those left behind. It also invites consideration of the role law might more constructively play for those who are essentially the rural remnant–many of them women–in the developing world.
The essay, while not something likely to be considered as “light” reading, lays out the scenarios facing the women who remain rural, by choice and by circumstance.
Agriculture is a sector in which globalization has had a pronounced impact on rural women. Women producers, among others, struggle to compete in the face of trade liberalization that allows the import of subsidized agricultural products. At the same time, local biases against women producers and the micro-enterprise sector may make it difficult for them to enter into new economic opportunities generated by globalization.
The high levels of debt acquired by many less developed countries impact rural livelihoods in other ways, too. Such debt severely hinders these countries’ ability to serve their citizenry, including their typically large rural populations. Further, rising debt severely limits state spending on education, health care and other services. Women and children, often the beneficiaries of such spending, thus frequently bear the brunt of debt’s consequences. Finally, the limited resources available increasingly target urban areas, further disadvantaging rural women and children.
The desertification of farm land, whether through natural consequences or exploitation, also adds to the problem, she explains, by forcing the migration of males from rural areas and into urban settings. When the men leave, women and children are often left behind to run already terribly challenged farming operations, with little or no potential of monetary success.
Not only does desertification drive male migration and thus result in rural female-headed households, it creates hardships for all rural households. Rural women are usually responsible for activities such as collecting water and firewood for the family. As resources decline, women devote more time to these tasks, leaving them less time to cultivate food for subsistence or as a source of income. Compounding the problem, women left behind must also assume tasks that were previously the responsibility of men.
Pruitt notes that in some ways the migration of men from rural communities — especially when such migration is seasonal and temporary — has resulted in newfound roles and experiences for women. For instance, men traveling to other parts of a country can bring back to rural areas information related to laws, agricultural techniques and other knowledge.
Worldwide, however, many rural households are headed solely by women who have been left behind by permanent migration of males from rural areas. As Pruitt notes, the Food and Agriculture Organization‘s date shows that women produce half of the world’s food for direct consumption and 428 million women work in the agricultural sector.
According to the Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook, when both self-employment and wage labor are considered, women provide more labor in agriculture than men in Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and some Caribbean and Central American countries. The FAO reports that two-thirds of women in the labor force of less developed regions engage in agricultural activities. Yet globally women own less than 2 percent of the land worldwide, and they receive less than 10 percent of the available credit.
Ironically enough, rural women worldwide are much more apt to be dealing with food insecurity than their urban counterparts. Such women, when they do generate income by selling their agricultural products, are more likely to spend their money on life necessities — food, shelter, health care. Because of this, many local governments do not provide monies to rural areas, which are seen as having much less of an overall economic impact.
Pruitt also takes on those who wish to impose a “U.S. model of agriculture” throughout the world.
That model assumes men to be the productive workers, while relegating women to near invisibility. Women’s programs have been limited to “health, family planning, nutrition, child care, and home economics … For women, the consequences of development include increased workloads, loss of existing employment, changes in the reward structures for their work, and loss of control of land.” Indeed, throughout the 1970s, women featured in international rural development policies only in relation to pregnancy, lactation, feeding children, procuring clean water, handling children’s diseases, and cultivating home gardens to supplement the family diet.139 This focus on “agriculture for men and home economics for women” cabins and undervalues rural women>
Clearly, rural women should be involved in development efforts–be it in agricultural or other forms. Yet abundant evidence suggests that women are not consistently included. Even when women have access to land, they often do not also have access to credit, technology, and extension services.
The exclusion of women in planning and development remained evident when Pruitt examined the responses of four countries — China, Ghana, India and South Africa — to Article 14 of CEDAW, the only human rights treaty that addresses the circumstances of rural women. Although each of the countries have set about to uphold the mission and principles of CEDAW as set out in Article 14, Pruitt’s research finds each lacking in the areas of education and inclusion. She also notes that despite lofty goals for the advancement of rural women, CEDAW not only lacks the ability to enforce, but has been ineffective at bringing its message to rural women globally.
Because law is so distant or absent in rural parts of the developing world, women there may not know that national law–let alone an international convention–confers on them particular rights and entitlements. They may be unaware of authorities other than those that are strictly local. Indeed, rural women are not only less likely to be aware of rights that originate at higher scales (that is, national or international) they are also less likely to have access to mechanisms for enforcing them locally. They may be unable to get the attention of legal actors for purposes of initiating strategic litigation or other efforts at enforcement.365 Until rural women are educated about their rights and have access to legal actors and institutions by which they may enforce these rights, international law as reflected in CEDAW and complementary national laws may be irrelevant, or at least of limited influence.
