Conservation for all, by all: making conservation effective and equitable
HELEN ANTHEM and KAME WESTERMAN
Conservation is ultimately a social process, and gender—the socially constructed roles and attributes associated with males and females—is a fundamental concept that in- fluences use of natural resources, priorities for conservation, and ability to engage in decision-making about those re- sources. Women and men have different knowledge, expe- riences and perceptions, and are affected by environmen- tal changes and conservation in different ways (McElwee et al., 2021). To conserve biodiversity, mitigate and adapt to climate change, and improve human well-being, it is crit- ical to understand and respond to gender considerations. Gender influences power and relations, and the rights
and values that society places on different people. For ex- ample, despite women’s use of and knowledge about natural resources, they often bear higher costs, and men tend to participate in and benefit more from conservation inter- ventions. In India, for example, the presence of tigers in a landscape governed for conservation, combined with patri- archy and the pressures of dowry, deepened the vulnerabil- ity of women and girls to risk and violence (Doubleday & Adams, 2020). This issue of Oryx examines gender and conservation.
Although gender has long been an issue of concern in the development sector, the conservation sector has been slower to act (James et al., 2021;Westerman, 2021) despite a grow- ing body of evidence that the meaningful participation of women in resource governance leads to improved compli- ance, transparency, accountability and conflict resolution, greater equity and, ultimately, more effective conservation (Argawal, 2010; Leisher et al., 2017). To some extent at least, the significance of gender is reflect-
ed in international environmental agreements (Westerman, 2021), and many conservation organizations have or are de- veloping policies and accompanying guidance (James et al., 2021). Yet for many, gender concerns are seen as an add on (Westerman, 2021) or beyond their goals (Goldman et al., 2021). Despite some supportive policies and a growing body of good practices, significant challenges in implementation of gender-equitable conservation remain (Westerman, 2021). Addressing gender inadequately, or even appearing blind to its importance, has been a long-standing issue in
HELEN ANTHEM Fauna & Flora International, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK E-mail
helen.anthem@fauna-flora.org
KAMEWESTERMAN (
orcid.org/0000-0003-3625-3619) Conservation International, Arlington, USA
conservation. Many conservation projects that do purport to address gender focus solely on women. Goldman et al. (2021) refer to a commonly observed practice, in which women participate in conservation through handicraft in- itiatives or through a handful of female representatives on decision-making bodies. Although there is a need to focus on women because of their historical and ongoing exclusion, promoting women’s participation alone is not enough, espe- cially if the focus is not on their substantial influence or is on women’s projects separate to the main conservation in- tervention. Alone, such approaches have limited impact on gendered power dynamics that perpetuate inequality and ultimately undermine conservation sustainability. As in the natural sciences, gender bias towards men re-
mains in social science research, including that around wild- life and natural resources (Corbera et al., 2021; Kahler & Rinkus, 2021). A study of the production of knowledge on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation found that 70% of authors were male and 80% studied in North America or Europe; biases that both shape and limit the focus and depth of research (Corbera et al., 2021). In contrast, a review of literature considering gender and conservation found that 70% of articles had female lead authors (James et al., 2021), perhaps reflecting the subject biases of male and female researchers or the common yet mistaken perception that gender is the domain of women. Less than 1% of academic research into wildlife crime even mentions the gender of respondents (Kahler & Rinkus, 2021). Gender bias in conservation is deep-rooted. Colonial
powers introduced the exclusionary practices that continue today (Goldman et al., 2021). Big game hunting was a com- mon pastime for colonists; a symbol of manliness epitomiz- ing the separation of male and female domains. As male hunters turned conservationists, they made and enforced conservation practice, laws and policies to suit their interests (Flintan, 2003). During the 1980s there was an increasing emphasis on community-based conservation, advocating participation by and benefits to local communities, but community-based conservation does not necessarily benefit all community members equitably, or at all. Argawal (2010) refers to par- ticipatory exclusions in which women and other marginal- ized groups are excluded from supposedly participatory institutions and processes. Conservation interventions frequently homogenize and romanticize communities; by ignoring differences within them, we bolster existing in- equalities (Goldman et al., 2021). Although sacred forests
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 801–802 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321001459
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
