Workshop on Women, Equity and Land and Natural Resource Governance, Canberra, Dec. 6-7, 2012
Gender in the Pacific: what’s particular about women’s inclusion
in land and natural resource governance?
by Rebecca Monson, Australian National University
The subject of our workshop raises and addresses a range of big and complex questions. In my
presentation this morning I’m hoping to throw a few ideas out there for us to discuss as the
workshop proceeds.
In relation to existing research:
There’s a lot of literature on natural resource tenure in Melanesia, particularly in PNG, which focuses
on the ways in which landholding and social organisation shift as a result of mining and forestry.
Particular attention has been paid to the ways in which concepts of land “ownership” are linked to
increased social and economic differentiation – those people who are able to establish themselves
as “owners” of land may benefit from land transactions and resource extraction, while other people
miss out.
There’s also some literature on ethnicity and conflict over land. Nick Bainton has written about
social conflict between migrant workers and customary landholders in the vicinity of Lihir, and
George Curry and Gina Koczberski have made similar observations in relation to oil palm plantations.
Matthew Allen’s PhD work included interviews with Guale and Malaitan militants who were involved
in the Tensions, and he notes that a lot of their grievances revolved around the failure of the state to
deal with ongoing tensions over land.
Related to this, there’s some literature on the nature of the state in postcolonial Melanesian
contexts, which considers competition over natural resources as linked to political instability or
violent conflict. So for example there’s a lot of literature on logging in Solomon Islands, and the
ways in which that has contributed to political instability and possibly the Tensions.
The existing academic literature – and the experiences of many people in this room – underscore the
fact that contests over land occur across a range of social fault lines. They occur between the central
state and local landholders, between people of the place and migrants or settlers who are said to
belong in other places, and between senior male leaders and other members of landholding groups.
However, there’s not much work on the gendered aspects of these issues.
This is somewhat surprising, since gender is a significant form of social difference in the Pacific. The
1986 publication, Land Rights of Pacific Women - which was written by Pacific Islanders - was one of
the first volumes on the subject of gender and land tenure anywhere in the world. I’d also note that
it was written mostly by Pacific Islander women.
So one of my questions is: what happened? How did we go from Pacific Islanders leading the world
in discussing these issues, to questions of gender and land seeming to drop off the agenda?
1
Despite the lack of extensive and sustained academic research, there are some key themes that
those of us who work in the region – and certainly those of us who are indigenous to the region –
are familiar with.
Anecdotally, we know that women seem to lose out when it comes to land transactions and largescale natural resource transaction. Women often hear about a transaction only after a decision has
been made, and they don’t tend to be the initial recipients of economic benefits. It’s not just women
who miss out – many men miss out, too. In many instances, decisions are made by a small number
of men within a community, and most women, and many men, don’t get very much of a say, and
don’t get a big share of any economic benefits
Sometimes women bear a disproportionate burden of the environmental impacts of things like
logging or mining. For example women are often responsible for collecting water, or for undertaking
most of the gardening, and they might find that this becomes more difficult due to logging or
mining. However I don’t think we can assume this – in Marovo I found that women thought that
logging actually had some positive impacts on their livelihoods – while most women expressed really
strong negative views of logging, they also described the fact that as more land gets cleared, they
can establish new gardens closer to their villages.
We’ve already mentioned that women don’t control financial benefits. They also don’t necessarily
benefit in any way at all from the money flowing through the community. In the case of logging, a
small number of men are usually listed as the beneficiaries of royalties, which they collect from
Honiara. They also spend the money in Honiara, so by the time they return home to their families
there’s not much left.
When money is spent in the village, it’s often spent on things like radios or new outboard motors,
rather than on health care or school fees. Or worse, it might be spent on alcohol, which creates all
sorts of problems. If it’s not spent on alcohol in trade stores, it will be spent in the nightclubs that
pop up near logging camps.
But I’m not just interested in identifying a litany of complaints. I’m interested in understanding how
and why these things are happening. How is it that women are missing out? Why are they
missing out? What processes are at play here?
There’s a particular quote that I’ve thought about a lot.
[Explain background]
Foreigners want to talk with the men. We women are excluded from these discussions and
negotiations. When it comes to logging, we’re victims, the men dominate us, we’re
oppressed! This is because historically, women could not talk. It was a sign of respect. The
men had to talk about everything. So today, women are not allowed to talk. If a woman
talks, the axe will come!
[Followed by laughter from the other women.]
I think the sentiments expressed by this woman would be echoed in various forms across Solomon
Islands and also in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.
2
If we look at her statement one way, she seems to be describing, and complaining about, the
patriarchy of customary law.
In particular, she referred to the idea that olketa woman no save tok – which can be variously
translated as women may not, can not, and do not talk in public arenas.
However she also refers to the fact that the regulatory framework around logging, and the practices
of multinational logging companies, work so as to undermine the participation of women.
Some people would hear this statement and conclude that Solomon Islander women are stuck
between the rules of the state, and the rules of custom. We could assume that Solomon Islander
women have very options, that they are – as this woman suggested - oppressed, and dominated by
their men.
However I think the situation is more complicated than that.
This senior woman wasn’t just describing what often happens in practice, nor does she seem to be
stuck between kastom. She was also contesting and critiquing both kastom and practice.
She used humour in her description of kastom, and made a joke that was well received by other
people in the room. In Solomon Islands people often use humour to talk about sensitive or
controversial issues. It’s way of diffusing tension, and making it possible to talk about difficult issues.
So while this woman was being a bit critical of certain aspects of kastom, she was also using a
culturally acceptable strategy to do that.
I think it’s important that we pay attention both to the ways in which women’s participation is
limited, as well as the strategies they use as they negotiate their way through those rules.
This woman was making an observation about the kinds of obstacles that women face in relation to
participation in logging, but she was also making decisions about how she would challenge and
critique those practices.
So people do have a capacity to act and strategise, to make decisions about how they will make their
claims to land and natural resources. However not all people are equally well-positioned to
participate in decision-making, and debates, and disputes about land.
In a paper I wrote for J4P a few years ago, I made the point that when discussions about land and
natural resources enter the arenas established by the state – for example chiefs’ hearings, courts,
timber rights hearings and land acquisition procedures – it is generally senior male leaders who
make the claims, and who make the decisions about who is, and is not a resource “owner”.
Furthermore, I think this suggests that contests over natural resources are also woven with contests
over leadership. For example, when senior men appear in the courts and are successful, this works
to reinforce their authority as leaders of the group. It also works to reinforce the authority of the
3
court to make decisions about land. This means that property rights and political authority are
woven together (see also Christian Lund’s work).
I want to conclude with two points:
The first is that contests over natural resources not only reflect social differentiation, they actually
create it. Land isn’t just a stage upon which social life plays out – it’s actually crucial to people’s
identities. The ways in which people relate to the land are intertwined with their gender, their
ethnicity, and whether or not they’re considered a customary leader.
Secondly: We often hear about kastom and the state, but the third force in the Pacific is obviously
Christianity and the churches. I’m not sure whether this is the case elsewhere in the region, but
certainly in Solomon Islands, we can understand land tenure as being influenced by three sources of
“law”: kastom, Christianity and the state. And if I look at the strategies that women seem to be
using, they seem to be mobilising the language and resources of kastom and Christianity far more
than the state. So to conclude with a question: why is this? Is it important, is it something we need
to acknowledge and deal with? And what does it mean for us as practitioners?
4