reform beneficiaries (ARBs), only 29% are women.44 In 2013, the DAR counted 622,674 female holders of land certificates (CLOA) which is far below the number of male (1,281,125) CLOA holders. 45 The 2013 figure for female CLOA holders increased by only 2% from 201046. As a result, gender-related policies of the DAR find only limited implementation on the ground. Denial of access to land can have an implication on the RTFN of women and their families since access to land can help women diversify their families’ means of livelihood. They can use their land to cultivate home gardens, raise livestock or use it for income-generating activities. Placing productive assets such as land under the control of women can contribute substantially to the realization of the RTFN, especially because women in poor households tend to spend most of their earnings on basic household needs while men spend a significant amount of their earnings for personal purposes47. There is clear link between poverty among rural women and the failure of the CARP/CARPER to deliver on its gender provisions in the Philippines. For the IPs, situation seems to be more complicated due to persistent problem of non-issuance of ancestral domain claims and the tedious process of securing the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims/Titles (CADC/Ts.), disadvantaging many indigenous and tribal groups, especially their women.48 3.3.3. Access to extension services Additional gender-specific constraints in agriculture include less access to agriculture extension training and services, and credits. As emphasized in Article 14, paragraph 2 (d) of the CEDAW, these support services are crucial for farmers to be able to cultivate their land. The awarding of a land title alone may guarantee access to land but does not ensure that the farmers can make full use of the land. Discrimination against women in accessing support services emphasizes the small importance that is given to women’s role in agriculture. Also, most agricultural policies and plans do not address the situation of women in the sector, despite several references to gender-related issues in a number of plans and strategies.49 3.3.4. Discrimination in relation to other pertinent rights of rural women Furthermore, as already briefly mentioned above, rural women face discriminatory barriers in relation to their right to work, as their wages as rural workers are lower compared to men; or they are not paid at all since they are considered family workers; or they have less access to agricultural extension services as well as social protection/security programs such as health and child care. These discriminatory practices influence rural women’s ability to feed themselves and their families. Under the CARP, fewer female farmers received land titles than the male farmers, and their key role in securing their families’ food intake is often overlooked. Rural women are disadvantaged by discriminatory stereotypes and related practices which prevent them from taking control over land, water and natural resources50. Equal access to agricultural support services and access to health care is often denied to rural women. They are also victims of nonequal pay as rural agricultural workers. Policies and initiatives are not always gender-responsive and rural women do not benefit from the enabled legal frameworks.51 In addition to securing access to natural resources, legal security of 44 Corral, Violeta P. (2015): Analysis of Land Tools in the Philippines Using Gender Evaluation Criteria (GEC), http://asianfarmers.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Corral_289-mar2015.pdf [Accessed: 03.06.2016]. 45 Philippine Statistics Authority (2016): Fact Sheet on Women and Men in the Philippines, http://www.census.gov.ph/gender-stat [Accessed: 13.05.2016]. 46 See CEDAW (2016): List of issues and questions in relation to the combined seventh and eighth periodic reports of the Philippines, 25, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1019&Lang=en [Accessed 13.05.2016]. 47 Jude L. Fernando (2006 ed.): Microfinance. Perils and prosects. Rutledge Studies in Development Economics. London/New York: Routledge. 48 Liamzone, C.; Arevalo, A; Naungayan, M. (2015): Women’s land rights in Asia, 79-87, http://www.angoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Lok-Niti-Women.pdf [Accessed: 16.05.2016]. 49 Ibid, xii. 50 CEDAW (2016): General recommendation No. 34 on the rights of rural women, 7, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/INT_CEDAW_GEC_7933_E.pdf [Accessed: 17.05.2016]. 51 Ibid. -8-