Anandita Ghosh and Shivani Satija present G&D’s special issue on transforming land and water rights amidst climate crises.
Discussions on just and sustainable development are incomplete without a focus on gender, land and water rights, climate change and governance. Women, and Black, Indigenous, and Dalit women in particular, have long been excluded from decision-making spaces related to land tenure and climate policies despite their contributions. They are disproportionately affected due to inequitable land and water resource policies and governance; deforestation and land grabs by states and big corporations for mining and other extractive industries; and climate change induced pressure and impacts that further exacerbate their vulnerabilities. Women’s land rights are also linked to issues of water access, water for irrigation, food security, and livelihoods. Against this backdrop, it is critical to look at the intersection of gender, water and land rights, rural livelihoods, and climate justice.
This special issue brings together contributions that analyse the aforementioned intersections. Written by scholars and practitioners, these articles and essays throw light on the structural inequities and inequalities that affect land tenure and access to land, water, and other resources, while also highlighting the ways in which marginalised groups resist these obstacles through collective organisings, advocacy, and sustainable practices. This special issue includes experiences and learnings from Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Laos PDR, Malawi, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Thailand, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. Guest edited by Dina Najjar, Naomi Shadrack, and Sara Ahmed, the introduction to this issue looks at, “(1) structural exclusion from land and resource rights, (2) challenging neoliberal approaches to land and water by valuing community-generated knowledge and action, (3) gendered vulnerabilities and the invisibility of care work in climate adaptation, and (4) women’s resistance, collective action, and gender transformative climate policies that centre women’s land rights and agency in shaping sustainable futures.” (Najjar, Shadrack, and Ahmed 2025)
Structural exclusion
Women have been historically excluded from land and resource ownership, a trend that continues to persist in contemporary times. Even in contexts where there are legal provisions that provide women with equal inheritance rights, women might not exercise this right due to patriarchal norms and expectations; religious and cultural norms; or to avoid conflicts or threats. In Ethiopia, the tensions and gaps between constitutional and customary law hinder implementation of women’s land tenure and inheritance rights (Roberts and Brown, in this issue). In Uganda, the misinterpretation of customary laws and the imperfect practice of statutory laws make it challenging for women to fully claim their land rights under both set of laws (Foote, in this issue). In India, widowed women farmers are largely missing from agrarian policies and financial aid interventions (Gughane, in this issue).
This gendered gap in land ownership negatively affects women’s economic prospects and well-being, affecting their livelihoods and pushing them into precarious work. If policies fail to acknowledge the intersection between land tenure and water rights, this in turn limits women’s ability to access and control essential resources. For instance, Gumucio at al. (in this issue) demonstrate how women are unable to access water effectively since water rights are often tied to land ownership. Additionally, they argue that securing women’s land tenure is beneficial for climate resilience as it allows women to invest in climate-smart agriculture and encourages water conservation.
Beyond gender, access to and control of resources is shaped by class, race, caste, and ethnicity. Authors in this special issue emphasise the importance of an intersectional approach to land and water governance. Gughane (in this issue) draws attention to the denial of inheritance rights to widows of farmers who die by suicide in Maharashtra, India. Across Indian states, Pallical and Dinker (in this issue) demonstrate that Dalit people’s right to natural resources are restricted due to caste discrimination, despite land reforms. Barot (in this issue) shows how access to water resources is shaped by caste, gender, and economic disparities in the case of Gujarat, India. In Thailand, Kammerer et al. (in this issue) fish farmers’ work and experiences are moulded by their gender, class, age, ethnicity, and environmental conditions. This in turn has effects on their affective experiences.
Several contributions in this special issue draw linkages between colonialism and continuing legacies of land dispossession. Writing on African land rights, Chigbu (in this issue) uncovers how colonial land registrations served to erase women from landholding roles, making the ownership structures male-centric and contributing to continuing challenges in land access for women in the region. Foote (in this issue) touches upon the failure of international policies and interventions to take into account historical and cultural challenges that limit women’s ability to claim and retain land rights. Mane et al. (in this issue) discuss how practices and models of ‘development’ often follow colonial and capitalist logics, disregarding the voices of Indigenous peoples. Amaya et al. (in this issue) assert that the imposition of climate adaptation practices in the Colombian Amazon and approaches that put conservation of natural resources and the rights and needs of Indigenous persons at odds, could lead to new forms of enslavement and usurpation.
While women’s land ownership is directly linked to climate adaptation practices, their ownership does not necessarily translate to equitable land rights. Monterroso (in this issue) advocate for meaningful leadership roles for women within decision-making spaces such as land management committees, policy advisory boards, and community-based land redistribution programmes, to name a few. Even when there are progressive policies, women’s land rights will remain precarious unless they also wield real decision-making power.
Neoliberalism
Several contributions in the issue demonstrate the ways in which neoliberal policies serve to further marginalise those at the margins through erosion of community knowledges and dispossession. In this issue, Mane et al. and Hernando- Arrese and Ibarra show the negative impact of private corporations and state development on community-held land, water, and forest resources in Cambodia and Laos and the impact of separation of water rights from land rights in Chile, respectively.
Nonetheless, women are at the forefront of collective resistances to such structural barriers. In Chile, community led resistance has affected policy level changes that centre water for subsistence, sanitation, consumption, and protection of ecosystems (Hernando- Arrese and Ibarra, in this issue). In Gujarat, India, women have resisted and protested against water policies that disadvantage local communities, and have influenced state policies (Barot, in this issue). Further, Monterroso (in this issue) discusses the role of funding mechanisms in enabling equitable climate and biodiversity outcomes.
The articles in this issue highlight the importance of strengthening women’s land and water rights for climate resilience, challenging neoliberal policy frameworks, and transforming livelihoods.
Gendered vulnerabilities and the invisibility of care work
Women’s work load in terms of paid and unpaid labour increase in the absence of equitable access and control over land and water resources, especially in the context of climate crises. One of the key themes that emerged in the articles is the disproportionate impact of climate change on women, particularly in terms of unpaid care work and economic precarity. In Thailand, for instance, in addition to the physical demands of farm fishing, women in small-scale aquaculture are burdened by the emotional burden of uncertain yields and fluctuating water conditions (Kammerer et al., in this issue). In Banaskantha, India, women’s care burden has significantly increased due to the effects of climate change – with droughts and floods occurring in the same season (Bachina et al., in this issue).
While women face these consequences, their burdens remain mostly invisible in national adaptation frameworks. Additionally, assumptions around care that are gendered lead to the marginalisation of critical knowledge that women have regarding conservation, sustainable agriculture, restoration, and resource management, as several articles in this issue demonstrate (Mane et al., Amaya et al., Hernando-Arrese and Ibarra, and Bachina et al.) Beyond caring for people, several authors of this issue expand the meaning of care to include forests, water, and land resources. The neoliberal profit-seeking and extractive logics ingrained in state and neoliberal development strategies are opposed by feminist and decolonial community-led practices of care and respect for essential resources.
Challenging neoliberal approaches and recognising Indigenous knowledge systems
Indigenous knowledge systems and practices, informed by lived experiences and multi-generational knowledge, offer insights into sustainable climate adaptation practices. In doing so, they also challenge neoliberal approaches to land and water governance that may prioritise profit over people. Further, neglecting or undermining Indigenous knowledge and practices, in favour of Eurocentric knowledge and practices, can lead to a loss of vital and effective local perspectives.
Contributions in this issue highlight the importance of decolonial, feminist interpretations and practices of land tenure systems, resource management, and climate resilience and adaptation practices. In Cambodia and Laos, Cambodian and Hmong Indigenous women have (Mane et al., in this issue) been critical in managing land and water resources over generations. They are holders of traditional ecological knowledge and are powerful agents in responding to the effects of climate change. Amaya et al. (in this issue) demonstrate the ways in which agricultural practices and traditional ritual practices are intertwined for the local communities in the Colombian Amazon. Agricultural practices in the region benefit forest restoration and also contribute to food security of the communities.
Several authors in this issue argue for the meaningful inclusion of Indigenous and local people in policy-making spaces and the inclusion and incorporation of local and Indigenous knowledge and experiences in policies.
Women’s resistance, collective action, and transformative governance
As mentioned earlier, women across contexts are leading climate adaptation and land and water rights movements. Women’s collectives and movements have played a key role towards climate-resilient futures. Against this backdrop, gender transformative approaches (GTA) that not only push for inclusion of women in decision-making spaces, but also challenge systemic inequalities are necessary for ensuring equitable land, water, and resource governance. In order to strengthen women’s rights to land and resources, Larson and Meinzen-Dick (in this issue) emphasise the need to use GTA, an approach that confronts and challenges ingrained, systemic societal norms. Contributions in this issue highlight the multiple efforts led and managed by women towards ensuring resource rights. For instance, Indigenous women in the Tolten hydrosocial territory, in Chile and the Tukano Oriental Indigenous Peoples in the Colombian Amazon highlight and centre the importance of traditional practices and knowledges that are critical to the survival of their ecosystems and their own survival. (Amaya et al., and Hernando-Arrese and Ibarra, in this issue). In Uganda, local organisations are negotiating land rights at the intersection of customary and statutory laws (Foote, in this issue). In Thailand, inter-generational resistance to hydropower-induced displacement manifests through community-led activism (Kammerer et al. in this issue). In India, Barot (in this issue), and Pallical and Dinker (in this issue) highlight community-led activism and leadership to address questions of water and land rights, respectively. Najjar et al. (in this issue) discuss the power of community-led theatre in influencing gender norms related to land inheritance and entrepreneurship. The pieces in this special issue highlight diverse initiatives and acts of resistance and resilience, which need to be recognised as critical for designing climate adaptation strategies and empower marginalised communities as key stakeholders
Conclusion
The learnings from this special issue serve as further evidence that equitable and sustainable climate action depends on attaining gender-responsive land and water governance. Going forward, tackling systemic injustices will need to integrate feminist, decolonial, and community-led viewpoints into policy frameworks. In addition to being a question of justice, securing women’s land and water rights is essential for food security, climate resilience, and sustainable rural livelihoods. Ultimately, transformative solutions that balance sustainability with social and gender equity become possible when marginalised groups are recognised and their agency amplified.
This blog is based on the introduction to the special issue authored by Dina Najjar, Naomi Shadrack, and Sara Ahmed.
References
Najjar, Dina, Naomi Shadrack, and Sara Ahmed (2025) “Transforming Land Rights, Improving Rural Livelihoods, and Carving Just Responses to the Climate Crisis.” Gender & Development 33 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/13552074.2025.2483557.