A Review of Transactional Sex for Natural Resources: Under-researched, Overstated, or Unique to Fishing Economies?

Abstract

Environmental change is projected to decrease the availability of key natural resources. Decreasing availability of resources that support food security and livelihoods for vulnerable populations is hypothesized to increase engagement in transactional sex. Therefore, we systematically examined the peer-reviewed literature to characterize what is known about transactional sex for natural resources, document the natural resources that are exchanged for sex, and identify qualitative trends. Of the 1063 articles returned, 33 were retained for full abstraction. A majority of articles were published after 2005 (93%) and focused on Africa (90%). Two-thirds of articles focused on sex-for-fish exchanges. Reports of transactional sex were also found for other resources, including agricultural land (12%) as well as food, water, and fuel in emergency contexts (12%). Migration and altered resource availability were described as underlying causes of transactional sex. Some studies described an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection, including HIV, as a health consequence of transactional sex. We offer three possible explanations for why the preponderance of previous studies have focused on sex-for-fish, rather than other natural resources, and suggest directions for future research.

Introduction

Global environmental change alters the quality, quantity, and distribution of natural resources that are instrumental to human health and development (IPCC, 2014; Maxwell, Fuller, Brooks, & Watson, 2016). Unreliable access to natural resources that are essential for accessing or producing food (e.g., fish, agricultural land), water, and livelihoods is linked to adverse psychosocial, economic, and health outcomes (Baumann, 2002). Moreover, limited access to natural resources may reproduce and exacerbate entrenched inequities by disproportionately impacting women and other vulnerable populations (Sorensen, Murray, Lemery, & Balbus, 2018; WHO, 2011). To mitigate these negative impacts, individuals employ a range of coping strategies (e.g., migration, livelihood diversification) (Ellis, 2000), and there is growing concern that women will increasingly use transactional sex to access limited natural resources (U.S. Congress, 2015).

Transactional sex is the exchange of goods or money for sex. Though definitions differ throughout the literature, transactional sexual relationships are typically defined as occurring outside of marital relationships and are theoretically and practically distinct from commercial sex work (Deane and Wamoyi, 2015; Hunter, 2002). Though motivated by the need to access resources, transactional sex relationships are largely informal, defined differently by participants who do not view them as sex work, often involve elements of care (e.g., emotional support, love, or trust may be present), and tend to occur with a regular partner(s) (Deane and Wamoyi, 2015; Swidler and Watkins, 2007). The characterization of transactional sex largely emerged amidst efforts to understand and reduce high incidences of HIV in some communities, and there is evidence that these relationships increase the risk of exposure to sexually transmitted infections (Stoebenau et al., 2013). Transactional sex occurs globally in both urban and rural settings (Dunkle, Wingood, Camp, & DiClemente, 2010; Stoebenau, Heise, Wamoyi, & Bobrova, 2016).

The case of fish-for-sex in sub-Saharan Africa, and particularly around Lake Victoria (e.g., Mojola, 2011; Camlin, Kwena, & Dworkin, 2013; Kwena, Camlin, Shisanya, Mwanzo, & Bukusi, 2013; Camlin, Kwena, Dworkin, Cohen, & Bukusi, 2014; Fiorella et al., 2015) is a type transactional sex for natural resources that has received considerable attention to date (Béné and Merten, 2008; Stoebenau, et al., 2016). Further, the role of fish declines has been recognized in motivating and altering the power dynamics with fish-for-sex relationships (Fiorella et al., 2015). Whether a broader range of natural resources beyond fish may motivate transactional sex in other settings has not been well examined. Further, the role that diverse natural resources may play in transactional sex relationships and the impact of resource declines on such relationships has not been well characterized.

Given the current trajectory of global environmental change, understanding the links between natural resources and sexual economies may be critical for mitigating disease risk, empowering people in vulnerable situations, and managing natural resources. Therefore, we systematically examined the peer-reviewed literature to characterize what is known about transactional sex to access natural resources, document the natural resources that are exchanged for sex, and identify qualitative trends.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature on transactional sex (including synonyms, e.g. survival sex, sexual exchanges) and natural resources (e.g. fish, wild meat, water, fuelwood, agricultural land, and mining/ores). We defined natural resources as any resource that is harvested from the environment. To focus on the unique dimensions of access to natural resources for harvest and implications of resource decline, we bound our inquiry to scenarios when food was accessed through resource harvest as opposed to purchase at markets. We acknowledge, however, that transactional sex may occur at other points within value chains.

We searched four databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts, and PsychInfo) for literature through March 6, 2018. Databases were selected to maximize heterogeneity of results, ranging from peer-reviewed medical literature to topically relevant social science and psychology research. Search terms for transactional sex included: transactional sex*, survival sex*, sex* exchange*, and risky sex*. These were paired with each of the following terms: fish, hunt*, bushmeat, wild meat, *wood, water, crops, farm* or agricultur*, mining or ore* or oil. We also searched for fish-for-sex, sex-for-fish, and analogous permutations for each natural resource. Language was not restricted, though our search terms were only in English; no restrictions by geography or earliest date were imposed.

Our search results returned two relevant literature reviews (Béné and Merten, 2008; Stoebenau, et al., 2016). To evaluate the comprehensiveness of our search strategy, we compared the articles cited by these reviews to our search results; all cited sources were retrieved using our search strategy. Given that our aim is to characterize transactional sex, instances of sex work, which has established ties with natural resource harvest (e.g., Desmond et al., 2005; Meekers, 2000; Wilson, 2012), was omitted from our review.

Any peer-reviewed article that described collecting data about or observations of transactional sex in exchange for or in order to access natural resources was included. Articles that failed to document and detail sexual economies, or discussed sex for other goods such as monetary rewards or food in markets without a direct link to the harvest of natural resources, were excluded. Additionally, articles that mentioned the existence of transactional sexual relationships only as background or context were excluded.

Literature searches across the four databases yielded 1502 articles, 64 of which mentioned the exchange of sex for access to a natural resource (Figure 1). Of these, 33 studies met our inclusion criteria. For each, the study aims, country, population, sample size, and methodology were extracted. The definition of transactional sex used, the resource exchanged for transactional sex, the reasons given for transactional sex, the market in which transactional sex was traded, individuals involved in the exchange, and extraneous factors affecting the availability of the resource were also reviewed and extracted.

Figure 1.

Database search and data abstraction overview for review of transactional sex for natural resources.

Results

The number of publications about transactional sex for natural resources has increased over the past twenty years. Although the earliest articles describing transactional sex for natural resources date to 1997, 93% of articles were published after 2005 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of the peer-reviewed literature about transactional sex exchanges to access natural resources (n=33). Findings are organized by the natural resource with disaggregation by location, research methods, and focus on HIV or migration; summaries are provided of findings on gender dynamics and the social and environmental impacts on the availability of natural resources.

Resource (Number of Studies)	Study	Location (Number of Studies, Resource if ‘Other’)	Methods	HIV-focuseda	Discussion of Gendered Migrationb	Gender Dynamics Describedc	Social and Environmental Dynamics Affecting Resource Availabilityd
Fish (22)	Mawazo, Mwana, Kamuyele, Mutala, & Hüsken, 2009	Democratic Republic of the Congo (1)	18 (82%) Qualitative 3 (14%) Quantitative 1 (5%) Mixed Methods	12 (55%)	Female (41%) Male (45%)	Disempowerment of women in fisheries was characterized as both a social and economic cause of transactional sex. Social norms in some instances prohibited women from fishing on boats, meaning that women’s access to fish was largely mediated by men, who actively harvest fish. Participation in transactional sex was one strategy to access fish for fish traders, who were often women. Women’s roles in the fisheries were recognized as diverse, but their perspectives were rarely fully integrated into fishery policy and value chains.	Seasonal, climatic, and weather factors Declining resources from fishing and pollution Economic, gender, and power structures Seasonal migration
	Matsue, Daw, & Garrett, 2014	Coastal Kenya (1)
	Camlin et al., 2013 Camlin, Kwena, Dworkin, Cohen, & Bukusi, 2014 Deane & Wamoyi, 2015 Fiorella et al., 2015 Kwena, Camlin, Shisanya, Mwanzo & Bukusi, 2013 Lwenya & Yongo, 2012 Mojola, 2011 Nathenson, Slater, Higdon, Aldinger, & Ostheimer, 2017 Pearson et al., 2013 Pickering, Okongo, Bwanika, Nnalusiba, & Whitworth, 1997 Seeley, Tumwekwase, & Grosskurth, 2009 Sileo, Kintu, Chanes-Mora, & Kiene, 2016 Westaway, Seeley, & Allison, 2007	Lake Victoria, including Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda (13)
	Kathewera-Banda et al., 2005 MacPherson et al., 2012 Nagoli, Holvoet, & Remme, 2010	Malawi (3)
	Idowu, Olaoye, Ifegbesan, Abdul, & O ’Busayo, 2012	Nigeria (1)
	Julius & Conteh, 2014	Sierra Leone (1)
	Merten & Haller, 2007	Zambia (1)
	Seeley & Allison, 2005	Multiple (1)
Food or Fuelwood in Emergencies (4)	Sutter et al., 2011	Ethiopia (1)	2 (50%) Qualitative 1 (25%) Quantitative 1 (25%) Mixed Methods	2 (50%)	Female (75%) Male (50%)	Traditional gender norms (e.g. women provide food for the household) influenced men’s and women’s behavior, norms within camps and among leadership, and resource access. Women separated from families may be disadvantaged in accessing needed resources and/or particularly vulnerable.	Limited distribution or onerous restrictions on resource access for refugees Inadequate supply in emergency scenarios Seasonality and rainfall
	Loevinsohn, 2015	Malawi (1)
	Payne, 1998	Uganda (1)
	Samuels et al., 2008	Multiple (1)
Land/Agriculture (4)	Tiruneh, Wasie, & Gonzalez, 2015	Ethiopia (1)	2 (50%) Qualitative 2 (50%) Quantitative	3 (75%)	Female (50%) Male (50%)	Traditional or legal property rights that accrued to men, but may not provide rights for women in marital relationships or through inheritance, were disadvantages for women reliant on agriculture. Seasonal migration among men and women altered gender dynamics and resource access in agrarian societies.	Seasonal migration Property rights Agrarian restructuring
	Muchomba, Wang, & Agosta, 2014 Dworkin et al., 2013	Kenya (2)
	Addison, 2014	South Africa (1)
Other Resource (3)	Hunter, Reid-Hresko, & Dickinson, 2011	Haiti (fuelwood; 1)	1 (33%) Qualitative 2 (67%) Quantitative	2 (67%)	Female (67%) Male (33%)	Women’s roles in trade were described as contributing to mobility and engagement in transactional sex relationships. Entrenched gender inequalities and economic disparities were broad themes identified across diverse resource access scenarios.	Climate and deforestation Lack of transportation Increased resource availability
	Orellana, Alva, Cárcamo, & García, 2013	Peru (boat transport to resources; 1)
	Wilson, 2012	Zambia (in context of copper mine; 1)
TOTAL (33)	-	East Africa (23) South Africa (2) West Africa (1) Caribbean (1) Multiple (2)	23 (70%) Qualitative 8 (24%) Quantitative 2 (6%) Mixed Methods	19 (58%)	Female (48%) Male (45%)	-	-

^aHIV-focused studies refer to those that examined the role of transactional sex in intersection with HIV risk, in increasing HIV risk, or as embedded within communities affected by HIV. As this research is largely qualitative, this does not imply HIV risk was an outcome or measured within these studies.

^bMigration was a common theme and we document here the proportion of studies that focused on migration, by gender. A given study may focus on migration by both genders, though this was rare.

^cGender dynamics refers to emergent themes around gender that were recurrent within the articles reviewed.

^dDynamics affecting resource refers to emergent themes around environmental changes that were recurrent within the articles reviewed. As environmental change is a function of both social and ecological processes, we include both types of drivers.

Geographically, there was an overwhelming focus on Africa (93%), particularly East Africa (72%; Table 1). More than one-third of all studies were conducted around Lake Victoria (38%).

The majority of studies detailed the ‘sex-for-fish’ phenomenon (62%), in which women exchanged sex with male fisherman to gain preferential access to fish (Table 1). Access to agricultural land (14%) and, in emergency contexts, food, water, fuelwood, and charcoal (14%; Table 1) were also traded for sex. Additional reports detailed transactional sex as a means to receive transport to natural resources, fuelwood, or copper ore.

While resource access was linked to transactional sex relationships in the articles reviewed, the drivers of environmental change or the extent to which it was discussed varied considerably (Table 1). We included both the social and ecological changes that interact to alter the availability of resources. For example, around Lake Victoria’s fisheries, fish availability was a function of interactions between seasonal dynamics, fishing pressure, pollution, water hyacinth, and fishery management (Njiru, Mkumbo, & van der Knaap, 2010; Omwoma et al., 2014; Ongore, Aura, Ogari, Njiru, & Nyamweya, 2018). As the reviewed articles did not necessarily focus on the natural resource economy that was the subject of exchanges, our inference about the role of environmental change in these relationships is limited.

We observed a broad focus on whether increased HIV risk was a cause or a consequence of transactional sex (72%). The articles we reviewed suggested that the confluence of transactional sex for natural resources and HIV is linked in several ways. Communities reliant on natural resources are often poor and may use transactional relationships to meet their needs (e.g., Kathewera-Banda et al., 2005; Payne, 1998). The migration of men and women to access natural resource may also make extramarital relationships more common (Kwena, Bukusi, Omondi, Ng’ayo, & Holmes, 2012; Westaway, Seeley, & Allison, 2007). Further, natural resource economies often have stark gender roles, meaning transactional sex, and increased HIV risk, may play a role in women gaining access to the predominant resource harvesting economy (e.g., Idowu, Olaoye, Ifegbesan, Abdul, & O’Busayo, 2012). Transactional sex for resources may also normalize this increased HIV risk, such as when fisherman and fish sellers see transmission as “inevitable” and vital to the upkeep of their business and livelihood (Kwena, et al., 2012).

A majority of studies described the mediating role of migration on the development of sexual economies (65%). For instance, in the sex-for-fish literature, fisherfolk’s migration in response to low fish yields was tied to transactional relationships (Camlin et al., 2014; Fiorella et al., 2015; Kwena et al., 2013). In other settings, transactional sex was tied to boat fare to reach Amazonian resources with transportation necessary for, and a step removed from, accessing natural resources (Orellana, Alva, Cárcamo, & García, 2013). Some studies described migration as a consequence of declining resource availability and a factor that separated men and women from the kin relationships that can sometimes secure resource access.

The co-occurrence and mutually exacerbating impact of gendered roles, environmental change, and restrictions on resource access was a common theme throughout articles reviewed. For example, men accessed fish directly through its harvest, and women fish traders were largely dependent on men to provide them access and sometimes secured that access through transactional sex relationships (e.g., Kathewera-Banda, et al., 2005; Lwenya and Yongo, 2012; MacPherson et al., 2012; Pearson et al., 2013). In non-fishery settings, female reliance on men for access to natural resources was similar, though less thoroughly described. For example, transactional sex for access to arable land was shaped by shifts in property rights, seasonality, and changing agrarian hierarchies (e.g., Addison, 2014; Dworkin et al., 2013). When property rights favor men, including in traditional rights and norms around inheritance of property in many settings, women without formal access to land may negotiate access through the use of transactional sex. In emergency situations, including famines and within refugee camps, transactional sex was used when natural resources for food and income were inaccessible (e.g., Samuels, Harvey, & Bergmann, 2008).

Discussion

Our review demonstrates that a growing number of natural resources influence transactional sexual relationships. A tension exists, however, between a growing concern and number of reports of transactional sex to access natural resources, and a predominant focus on African fisheries. The variety of natural resources exchanged for sex lends plausibility to the idea that transactional sex outside fishing economies may be overlooked. At the same time, we found a range of unsubstantiated reports of transactional sex throughout the peer-reviewed and grey literatures (omitted from this review) that suggest that although transactional sex is widely commented on, observations of transactional sex may be biased or, at times, overstate relationships.

Similarly, despite a level of concern that has spurred a US Congressional Resolution (U.S. Congress, 2015), relatively limited research engages directly with the implications of environmental change for transactional sex relationships. The few peer-reviewed articles that directly examined resource declines suggested that they may motivate or shift power dynamics within transactional sex relationships (Fiorella, et al., 2015; Mojola, 2011). Still, links between transactional sex and limited access to resources underscore potential concerns of environmental change causing resources to decline with an impact that may extend beyond the influences of poverty. At an individual level, participation in transactional sex may not differ markedly whether the transaction is for a natural resource compared to another subject of transactional sex exchanges, such as cash, accommodations, food, clothing, or cosmetics (Stoebenau, et al., 2016).

At a broader scale, transactional sex linked to natural resources is of particular concern as availability of natural resource decline for two reasons (Fiorella, et al., 2015). First, natural resource declines are difficult to reverse as natural processes may require years or decades to replenish resources. Second, in the face of natural resource declines, harvesters may increase their reliance on natural resources in the face of scarcity, rather than switching livelihoods, with vulnerability further increasing as resources become more difficult to access (Cinner, 2011; Clark and Lamberson, 1982; Mainka and Trivedi, 2002).

In the sections that follow, we discuss potential explanations for the focus on transactional sex in African fisheries and suggest areas for future research directions.

Is transactional sex unique to fisheries?

Several possible explanations address the relatively higher rate of observations of transactional sex in fisheries: (1) transactional sexual relationships may be under-reported or subject to observer bias in settings where HIV prevalence is high, (2) transactional sex may be an overstatement of ordinary relationships, or (3) fishing economies may uniquely motivate transactional sex.

(1). Transactional sex as subject to observer bias

The study of transactional sex as a distinct and noteworthy relationship has largely grown out of public health efforts to mitigate HIV risk. The earliest use of the term “transactional” to describe sexual relationships dates to 1989 and was used to describe social influences on HIV risk in sub-Saharan Africa; since then, there has been an exponential rise in use of this terminology and categorization (Stoebenau, et al., 2016). However, while transactional sex is associated with HIV incidence (Smolak, 2014), the recognition of these relationships may also be a symptom of observational bias. Indeed, local sexual practices in natural resource economies without high rates of HIV rarely receive the same level of scrutiny. This may therefore contribute to under-reporting of transactional sex in other settings due to observational bias (i.e. researchers only look for transactional sex in areas with a high HIV prevalence, such as the Lake Victoria fishery).

(2). Transactional sex as an overstatement

Transactional sexual relationships may not necessarily be a unique or easily discerned sexual relationship category. Sexual relationship norms are often context dependent, and people in many societies remain in relationships to maintain or improve their socioeconomic status (Dunkle et al., 2007; Dunkle et al., 2004; Dunkle, et al., 2010). However, outside observers may be inclined to define relationships as ‘transactional’ among the poor or those dependent on natural resources for food and income. More insidiously, the characterization of transactional sex could, at times, be linked to a hypersexualization of Africans or those with sexually transmitted infections (Stillwaggon, 2003). The terminology and characterization ascribed to transactional sexual relationships in some local languages, such as jaboya in Luo spoken in some areas around Lake Victoria, may have facilitated its linguistic and conceptual differentiation from sex work or marital relationships among participants.

Parsing relationship motivations in other contexts may be more difficult. Researchers have increasingly moved to distinguish transactional sex from other motives for material exchange, such as care-taking or affection, by defining it as staying in a relationship longer than desired to secure access to materials or goods (McCoy, Ralph, Njau, Msolla, & Padian, 2014), but this has not long been the case.

(3). Uniqueness of fisheries

The commonality of transactional sex to access fish, relative to other resources, may belie a distinct hierarchical gender dynamic that foments a transactional sexual economy. While all economies have gendered elements, the extent to which gender roles are embedded and separated in fishing economies may have a unique impact.

Fishing economies often position men as the fish harvesters, and thus the primary controllers of natural resources, and women as fish processors. Though women do fish in some settings, a division in roles is often maintained by taboos and longstanding educational differences, making women’s access to fish dependent on men in many global settings (Thorpe et al., 2014) and structurally unequal (e.g., Kathewera-Banda, et al., 2005; Lwenya and Yongo, 2012; MacPherson, et al., 2012; Pearson, et al., 2013). Furthermore, the migration of fisherman away from their families may propagate gendered roles, with women left to care for families at home in some instances (e.g., Seeley, Tumwekwase, & Grosskurth, 2009), though women may also migrate to trade fish (Camlin, et al., 2014).

Of note, a range of sectors beyond fisheries are sharply gendered and it is not necessarily clear why the transactional sex dynamics would transpire differently in fisheries. For example, mining and oil are similarly male-dominated industries that often involve migration and high HIV risk, yet have been more closely linked to sex work than transactional sex (e.g., Desmond, et al., 2005; Meekers, 2000; Wilson, 2012). The proximity of communities to lakeshores and coastlines where fisheries predominate may be an important distinction from the relatively more isolated sites of mines.

Future Research Directions

We suggest that future research consider (1) how gendered natural resource economies may lead to transactional sex, (2) the implications of increasing human migration on transactional sex, and (3) the functional role that transactional sex plays in maintaining resource access.

Based on our findings, we suggest that we should be particularly concerned about women’s access in the most gendered value chains, their power in relationships and industries, and, especially, their positionality when resource access declines. Research should focus on the most sharply gendered economies, meaning where men’s and women’s roles are divided – or those that become more gendered as resources are constrained or prices in some sectors rise. For example, around Lake Victoria, women were forced into a low-value fish trade when men took over as traders of the profitable export fishery (Fiorella et al., 2015; Medard, 2012). In investigating if transactional sex occurs in the context of other resources, analysis should be integrated with an understanding of changing natural resource availability and access, and also consider distal connections to natural resources (e.g. boat fare to access natural resources; Orellana et al., 2013).

We also encourage investigation into whether transactional sex occurs in migrating populations and its unique impacts on disease risks within these vulnerable populations. Already common among fishers and fish traders (Camlin, et al., 2014; Kwena, et al., 2013), migration to access declining resources in the wake of climate change may become more common. This trend has emerged in Ethiopia, where migration in response to seasonal agricultural changes has increased transactional sex (Tiruneh, Wasie, & Gonzalez, 2015). The presence of transactional sex among migrants in emergency settings is also foreboding (Loevinsohn, 2015; Payne, 1998; Samuels, et al., 2008), and merits concern about transactional sex during extreme restrictions on resource access, such as human displacement in response to severe weather.

In assessing the dynamics of transactional sex relationships we also caution that transactional sex is too often simplified or decried by observers, and many reports fail to carefully understand or substantiate reports with empirical data. A careful study of the function and drivers of these relationships will be most constructive (Deane & Wamoyi, 2015). In particular, transactional relationships for natural resources play a functional role and participation is used to maintain critical access to natural resources, particularly in the face of resource declines. Researchers, policymakers, and donors must recognize the environmental context that positions transactional sex relationships as a buffer against risks of resource decline. As we address the ramifications of environmental changes, we must understand the gender dynamics that alter access to natural resources, and the complex ways these ties may increase vulnerabilities and disease risk.