802 Helen Anthem and Kame Westerman
have been hailed as models for community-based conserva- tion, this ignores the fact that women are largely excluded from their management (Mokashi & Diemont, 2021). Greater recognition of the links between, and attempts to
integrate, human rights and conservation (Springer et al., 2011) have contributed to an increasing focus on gender, but it cannot be assumed that this makes conservation inter- ventions automatically gender-responsive. Using the term human rights denies ‘.. . the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded.. . For cen- turies, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem should acknowl- edge that’ (Adichie, 2014,p. 41). Gender normsmay limit the participation ofwomenin con-
servation but they are neither static nor universal (Goldman et al., 2021). Culture, which shapes gender norms, is sometimes given as a reason for not addressing gender issues within con- servation, yet culture is constantly changing and adapting to new ideas and social evolution. Gender is complex and nuances are important (Kahler &
Rinkus, 2021), and it is necessary to recognize that both femi- nine andmasculine identities and behaviours are diverse (Colfer, 2020).We need to look beyond the dualism of menand women and to examine how gender intersects with other factors such as marital status, age and ethnicity (Lau, 2020). Although there are some key differences between the
contexts in which the conservation and development sectors operate (Westerman, 2021), we can learn much from the development sector. This includes exploring and imple- menting more innovative or transformative approaches, such as addressing patriarchal systems, harmful masculin- ities and the gender norms that perpetuate gender-based discrimination, exploitation and violence (James et al., 2021). If conservation interventions do not consider and address gender differences they ‘may be doomed to perpetuate them’ (Larson et al., undated). In arguing for socially just conservation, Martin (2017) demonstrated that equity me- diates conservation effectiveness through improved legiti- macy and collective action. In the developing discourse on social justice and decolonizing conservation it is vital that the diversity of communities is considered, and that wo- men’s voices, amongst others, do not get excluded. Responding to gender inequalities within conservation
should not be an optional extra (James et al., 2021). The breadth of the articles in this issue, reflecting on the role of women and gender in wildlife crime, payments for eco- system services, sacred forests, and conservation research and practice, demonstrates that gender is relevant to all that we do. These articles all point to the need for greater attention to gender and the need for further research. More meaningful discussion and consideration of gender issues within conservation research and practice will lead
to more effective and equitable outcomes, advancing con- servation for all, by all.
References
ADICHIE, C.N. (2014) We Should All Be Feminists. Fourth Estate, London, UK.
ARGAWAL,B. (2010) Gender and Green Governance. The Political Economy ofWomen’s Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
COLFER,C.(2020) Masculinities in Forests: Representations of Diversity. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
CORBERA, E., MAESTRE-ANDRES, S., CALVET-MIR, L., BROCKINGTON, D., HOWE,C.&ADAMS,W.M. (2021) Biases in the production of knowledge on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. Oryx, 55, 868–877.
DOUBLEDAY, K.F.&ADAMS, P.C. (2020)Women’s risk and well-being at the intersection of dowry, patriarchy, and conservation: the gendering of human–wildlife conflict. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 3, 976–998.
FLINTAN,F.(2003) ‘Engendering’ Eden: Women, Gender and ICDPs: Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward. Summary Document. Wildlife and Development Series No.16, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
pubs.iied.org/ 9231IIED [accessed 23 September 2021].
GOLDMAN, M.J., JAGADEESH, S.N., MENG’ORU NGIMOJINO,T. & GOWDA, L.M. (2021)Women’s stories and knowledge of wildlife and conservation practice in northern Tanzania and South India. Oryx, 55, 818–826.
JAMES, R., GIBBS, B.,WHITFORD, L., LEISHER, C., KONIA,R.& BUTT,N. (2021) Conservation and natural resource management: where are all the women? Oryx, 55, 860–867.
KAHLER, J.S. & RINKUS, M.A. (2021) Women and wildlife crime: hidden offenders, protectors and victims. Oryx, 55, 835–843.
LAU, J.D. (2020) Three lessons for gender equity in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 34, 1589–1591.
LARSON, A.M., DOKKEN,T.&DUCHELLE, A.E. (undated) Can Safeguards Guarantee Gender Equity? Lessons from Research onWomen in Early REDD+ Implementation. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/SafeguardBrief/5191- brief.pdf [accessed 23 September 2021].
LEISHER, C., BOOKER, F., AGARWAL, B., DAY, M., MATTHEWS, E., PROSNITZ, D. et al. (2018) A preliminary theory of change detailing how women’s participation can improve the management of local forests and fisheries. Preprint publication. SocArXiv,
doi.org/10. 31235/
osf.io/rgakw.
MARTIN,A.(2017) Just Conservation: Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
MCELWEE, P., LÊ, H.T.V., NGHIÊM, T.P., VŨ, H.D. & TRẦN, N.H. (2021) Gender and payments for environmental services: impacts of participation, benefit-sharing and conservation activities in Viet Nam. Oryx, 55, 844–852.
MOKASHI,S.&DIEMONT, S.A.W. (2021) Access denied: understanding the relationship between women and sacred forests in western India. Oryx, 55, 827–834.
SPRINGER, J., CAMPESE,J.& PAINTER,M.(2011) Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Contexts. Scoping Paper for the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights, WWF, Washington, DC, USA.
thecihr.org/s/Conservation_and_Human_Rights_Key_ Issues_and_Contexts.pdf [accessed 1 Octobe 2021].
WESTERMAN,K. (2021) Unpacking the perceived benefits and costs of integrating gender into conservation projects: voices of conservation field practitioners. Oryx, 55, 853–859.
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
