The Silence Tax

Asking a woman about violence the wrong way can erase the evidence that guides policy. New work from Pakistan shows that a private first question changes what women tell us, and the stakes reach all the way to the farm.

Every statistic on violence against women starts as an answer to a question, and the answer depends on how the question is asked. WHO's 2023 estimates put the lifetime toll at about 1 in 3 women worldwide, some 840 million women and girls, who have faced physical or sexual partner violence or sexual violence from a non partner. WHO also notes that the true figure is likely higher, because the subject is so heavily stigmatised.

That gap between what happens and what is reported was the subject of a WEESA learning event on 3 December 2025, co hosted by the World Bank's South Asia and Latin America and Caribbean Gender Innovation Labs for the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence. According to the event description, the speakers presented new evidence from Pakistan and Peru on reporting methods that raise disclosure, even in rural places where many people cannot read. This brief draws on that evidence and asks what it means for agrifood systems.

You cannot fix what you cannot count

The burden sits heavily where farming is the main livelihood. WHO's estimates show partner violence at about 32 percent among women in Sub Saharan Africa and 31 percent in Southern Asia, with Oceania highest at 37 percent. Every one of those figures is a floor, not a ceiling.

Privacy changes the answer

In rural Pakistan, researchers at the World Bank tested a simple idea: let women answer the hardest questions privately before anyone asks them face to face. They adapted audio based self interviewing for communities with high illiteracy, and found that respondents understood the questions well. Women who answered privately first went on to disclose partner violence 41 to 57 percent more often in the later face to face interview.

Peru offers a useful caution. An earlier study in Lima by Jorge Agüero and Verónica Frisancho compared standard survey questions with a list experiment, which hides each woman's individual answer. Average prevalence did not change, but better educated women reported more violence when privacy was greater, and the least educated showed little difference. The lesson is that no single method works everywhere. Tools need to be tested on the women they are meant to reach. That study predates the webinar, so read it alongside the webinar's Peru findings, not as a summary of them.

The field pays the bill

Violence that goes uncounted still has a cost, and it falls on labour. In Ethiopia, a survey of 2,095 women found that those who experienced partner violence missed an average of 19 days of care work, and working women lost about 17 days of productive time over their lifetime. Violence also reduced household income. A separate UN Women study put the aggregate cost to the Ethiopian economy at 1.21 percent of 2020 GDP.

For farming households the lost days land in the worst place, because work on a farm cannot be postponed past planting, weeding or harvest. A small qualitative study in Osun State, Nigeria, found that most of the 54 abuse survivors interviewed lost at least 16 days of farm activity a month. It is too small to generalise, but it shows the scale of what a larger, private reporting survey could measure.

Violence also shapes who controls the land. Reviews of African studies argue that women in strongly patriarchal settings may hold back from claiming land rights because they fear a violent response, which keeps them from the very asset that raises productivity. Set that beside FAO's finding that farms managed by women are 24 percent less productive than same size farms managed by men, and a question follows. How much of that gap runs through violence and the threat of it? The evidence cannot yet say, and the reason is that the measurement is so thin.

Weather turns up the pressure

Climate adds a second layer. A study of Uganda, Zimbabwe and Mozambique linked demographic survey data to records of severe weather events. Women in regions hit by severe weather had higher odds of reporting partner violence: 25 percent higher in Uganda, 38 percent in Zimbabwe and 91 percent in Mozambique.

This matters alongside FAO's finding that female headed rural households lose about 8 percent more income to heat stress than male headed households. The same shock cuts income and raises risk at home. Because violence is under reported, these links are probably understated.

What to do next

Better questions only matter if they lead to better decisions. Each actor can start with one step.

1. Programme designers. Add a private reporting step before face to face questions on violence, and test it with the women you serve. Use trained enumerators, strict confidentiality and a referral list in every interview, so that asking never puts a woman at risk.
2. Agribusinesses and cooperatives. Treat safety as a productivity issue. Train field staff to refer, and put women's names on accounts, contracts and land records so that income and assets are theirs to control.
3. Funders and ministries. Pay for measurement. Add private reporting violence modules to agricultural and climate resilience surveys, and report results alongside drought and flood exposure.
4. Policymakers. Link land rights, survivor services and climate adaptation plans. A woman who can leave a violent home and keep her land is a more resilient farmer.

The yield gap, the climate gap and the safety gap share a root: women's work and women's risks are poorly seen. Counting violence better will not end it. But it shows where services, land rights and credit are needed most, and what each year of silence costs the farm.