This Friday's BIPR seminar was a presentation by Associate Professor at the University of Essex and SAIS alumnus Florian Kern on a research project he co-authored assessing the gender dynamics of land disputes in Northern Uganda. Funded by the Robert Bosch Foundation, the project used surveys of 1,260 households in the Dokolo and Oyam districts taken in 2019. Both districts were heavily affected by the Ugandan Civil War (1986-2005), with damaged infrastructure, widespread poverty, and inadequate transitional justice adding the additional dimension of land rights in a post-conflict environment with the goal to transfer the team's findings to other conflict and post-conflict zones in Africa. The main takeaways were that women and female-headed households (FHHs) in Africa, especially in conflict zones, were particularly vulnerable to land rights insecurity, faced different kinds of disputes from male-headed households (MHHs) such as higher rates of false claims and land grabs, employed different strategies to settle disputes, and reported lower levels of satisfaction of settled deals.

In the design process of this project, Kern and his team focused on the undisputable importance of land ownership rights in Africa, especially since land insecurity and conflicts over land tenure are endemic across the continent. Land is an essential resource to sustain families. It provides substance through farming crops and raising animals, produces income and rent, and it allows for shelter to be built, issues which are especially pertinent in post-conflict zones. Land has been a central issue in Uganda, with 23% of Ugandans reporting involvement in a land dispute within the last five years. Women are particularly affected, as men customarily hold all land-holding rights and women are barred from owning or inheriting land. FHHs also experience poverty on a greater scale, with 33% of FHHs being chronically poor. Furthermore, existing formal property rights are often superseded by customary practices favoring MHHs and men. With such conditions in mind, Kern and his team decided to focus on investigating the lived experience and differences of land disputes of FHHs and MHHs, concentrating on the types of land disputes, strategies used to solve them, and satisfaction with resolutions. They expected FHHs to have more and greater disputes, different and fewer strategies taken and available to them, and lower satisfaction in deals, all of which were accurate.

The team conducted two surveys in 2019 and 2022. They relied on a team of local liaisons, or numerators, who surveyed 500 FHHs and 760 MHHs and communicated with local authorities or elders to inform and prepare communities for surveyors arrivals, and their questions touched on household livelihood, experiences with land disputes, and gender rights attitudes. As expected, the results revealed significant disparities in land tenure security and dispute resolution strategies between FHHs and MHHs. One key finding was that the majority of respondents, particularly FHHs (65%) and MHHs (77%), reported that their income was usually insufficient to meet their needs, with an even more dire situation for 28% of FHHs and 15% of MHHs who stated that their income was almost never enough. Additionally, land documentation remains a major challenge, as 44.8% of respondents reported having no formal or informal documents proving ownership, though FHHs were slightly more likely to possess written formal documents. Regarding land disputes, 46.6% of households reported experiencing an ongoing dispute, with relatively equal rates between FHHs (45.7%) and MHHs (47.2%). However, the nature of these disputes varied by gender. While both groups reported issues such as false claims, inheritance conflicts, and trespassing, FHHs were disproportionately affected by land grabs, no-consent sales, and eviction threats. MHHs, on the other hand, were more likely to frame disputes as family-related conflicts, suggesting different gendered perceptions of land ownership struggles.

In terms of dispute resolution strategies, FHHs were more likely to take no action when faced with a conflict. Many cited barriers such as distance to district authorities, familial pressure asserting they had no rights to the land, or simply conceding to the disputing party. When they did seek resolution, FHHs were more inclined to turn to informal networks, while MHHs more frequently engaged with local institutions. Overall, both groups had low engagement with subnational and national institutions. Notably, MHHs were more proactive, often pursuing multiple strategies (e.g., trying two or three different approaches) and demonstrating greater confidence in engaging with institutions. This discrepancy in approach also affected outcomes, as MHHs had 10% more resolved disputes compared to FHHs, while FHHs had 10% more ongoing disputes. Additionally, 8% more FHHs reported being very unhappy with the results of their dispute resolution, whereas 10% more MHHs expressed satisfaction.

The findings reinforce broader patterns of gendered land insecurity in Africa, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Women, especially those heading households, face heightened vulnerability due to systemic barriers in accessing land rights and resolving disputes. Efforts to inform women about their rights can be met with resistance, as such knowledge challenges entrenched local power structures. For instance, women may face backlash from husbands if they discover they lack a marriage certificate, their husband's will, or their name on a land title—realizing that, in the event of their husband's death, they would have no legal claim to the land. These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions to support women's land rights, reduce gendered barriers to dispute resolution, and enhance institutional accessibility for vulnerable populations.

hosted by Professor Tommaso Sonno


Policy-makers expect women and female-headed households to be particularly likely to suffer from land rights insecurity in Africa. This problem can be especially exacerbated in societies recovering from past conflict: when communities experience a shock to the number of young men who can engage in productive labour (due to death or injury), female household heads sustain many families. We study how the experience with land disputes compares for female-headed and male-headed households. We base our analysis on a survey with 1,260 households in two districts in Northern Uganda (Dokolo and Oyam). We focus on three different kinds of experience with land-related disputes and differences between male and female headed households: first, what type and number of land disputes do household heads report? Second, what strategies do household heads employ to solve land-related disputes? Third, to what extent are these disputes solved, and how satisfied are the household heads with these solutions? Our findings shed light on common problems male and female-headed households face with regard to land disputes, but also the particular challenges and strategies of female-headed households as compared to their male counterparts. Our results inform gendered perspectives on land-based investments, showing where civil society and stakeholders can expect particular vulnerabilities of female-headed households.

FLORIAN KERN

Florian Kern is a Reader (Associate Professor) at the Department of Government and a fellow at the Michael Nicholson Centre for Conflict and Cooperation of the University of Essex. He is also a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Department of Methodology, London School of Economics. He received his PhD from the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Konstanz. He also hold an MA from Johns Hopkins University SAIS. His main research interest lies in governance, the political economy of development, and conflict, with a regional focus on Africa and indigenous North America. He employs a variety of approaches, combining applied qualitative and quantitative methods, surveys, case studies, and fieldwork. His most recent work focuses on domestic sources of foreign policy formulation in Africa, land rights, as well as research transparency in qualitative methods. With colleagues, he runs the Multilingualism, Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Africa project (MCCRA), funded by an ESRC Large Research Grant (2.5 million GBP, 2023-2027). With his colleague Hannah Gibson, Kern organises the Africa Special Interest Group (ASIG), the hub for research on Africa at the University of Essex. He also founded the Age and Power in Africa (AaPiA) group. Since 2024, he is on the research committee of the British Institute in Eastern Africa (BIEA), one of the British Academy's International Research Institutes (BIRI). With Mwita Chacha, he has also started the International Politics in Africa research network. In recent years, his research has been generously supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the ESRC Global Challenges Research Fund, the Robert Bosch Foundation, the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF), the Gerda Henkel Foundation, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).