Legal reform can be transformative in improving women’s land rights when changes in legislation are supported by complementary changes in regulations that ensure that women’s legal rights are documented equally with those of men and by public awareness raising targeted at men and women. Prior to signing the Lesotho 1 Compact, married women were considered minors and unable to own land or enter into a contract. In order to allow for women’s participation in the private sector, MCC made passage of the Legal Capacity of Married Persons Act (LCMPA) a condition precedent to the Compact. The Act was passed in December 2006 and in 2008 the then Land Act was amended to allow for joint titling of land held by married couples; in 2010 Parliament passed a new Land Act, which affirmatively stated that property acquired by either spouse at any time is presumed to be jointly owned and shall be jointly titled.
The land regularization activity took the law into action preparing joint titles as the de facto form of registration for property owned by married couples. LARP implementing contractors were required to verify and document land rights of existing landowners as well as collect marital status during the call for land rights documentation. In addition, the new Land Act and LAA were supported by largescale public outreach campaigns, which helped increase the knowledge of these reforms and related demand.
Over 98% of households were aware of women’s land rights in the final year of the Compact, showing the strength of the public outreach program. Land regularization sensitization exercises improved awareness as well with male headed households 4 percentage points more likely to understand women’s rights and female headed households 8 percentage points more likely to be aware of the LAA in 2019. Overall, women in Lesotho flourished due to LARP with substantial increases in women’s documented land rights and access to finance. There was a 55-percentage point (p.p.) increase in likelihood of a parcel being individually or jointly titled in the name of a woman. The evaluation found about 1/3 of the 55-p.p. increase was directly due to the legal, institutional and policy reforms as seen from sporadic land registration in the name of women. The remaining 2/3 of the increase in women’s documented land rights was due to the direct supply of leases to women during the land regularization work which followed the reforms.
MCC land programs have always aimed to encourage improving women’s land rights, including ensuring that land documents allow for recording more than one name and encouraging joint registration of jointly held rights. However, other MCC efforts have not always been as successful in documenting women’s land rights as the Land Administration Reform Activity (LARP). LARP’s success expanding women’s rights potentially stems from a few factors. First, the legal and regulatory framework was amended to remove a key constraint around married women owning land. In Lesotho’s case, the legal and regulatory environment was a major constraint for women who had little ability to gain land rights prior to the reforms. Second, LARP strongly encouraged joint registration of the property rights of married couples. Third, the Land Act (2010) covered married couples under civil or customary law and did not exclude land that had been inherited by one spouse. These are important distinctions that otherwise had the effect of denying women rights to land - customary marriage was often the basis for denying married women the right to inherit from their husbands and customary inheritance was limited to the eldest male heir. Finally, LARP focused on educating women and the community about women’s land rights, including separate meetings held with women during public sensitization activities. The focus on women throughout the project and specific aim to increase women’s land rights and participation in the private sector helped build a comprehensive and cohesive environment for success.
Moving forward, land projects should continue to analyze whether legal, regulatory, and institutional reforms are required to support gender equitable formalization of rights, as well as when direct support for clarification and formalization of land rights is necessary. For example, direct funding of titling may only be necessary when there are vulnerable groups who may not access the formal system without support, when introducing a new land right or in a customary tenure situation without a history of formal rights. Careful attention to detail within the legal framework is key, particularly around women’s rights to land in marriage and via inheritance, but also the supplementary laws that establish women’s equal status with men; and in particular how these laws intersect with land laws. Finally, future legal and regulatory reforms should ensure sufficient public outreach to both women and men so there is an understanding of new land rights and procedures.