856 K. Westerman
have onemale and onefemale[fieldstaff] in each community permanently’. Elsewhere it was noted that these small grants ‘allowed us, for the first time, to sit down as an office and focus on gender as an issue [...] and was definitely an effective way to build staff capacity and understanding about gender’.
(4) Gender normative change within project communities Eight of the 11 individuals interviewed specifically men- tioned a noticeable change in perspective regarding gender within the communities where the projects were imple- mented. With a more explicit focus on gender, project discussions and activities with community members helped to elevate understanding about the gendered roles and responsibilities within natural resource management. In some cases, this has led to transformational change within the community: in one instance, staff highlighted that ‘in part because of separate discussions we held with men and women about fisheries, one woman has become presi- dent of her community’, and staff from another site reported ‘we have seen positive changes in the community as a result of the grant; in fact it has been one of the most exciting innovations of the project in the past year. The women’s financial contribution to the community fisheries com- mittees has meant that they ‘now feel more entitled to know what management decisions are being made, and to challenge their decisions as they need to, thus ensuring women’s voices are heard and their needs considered in decision-making’.
(5) Strengthened partnerships for national implementation of environmental priorities All interviewees noted that partnerships were crucial in supporting gender integration, including those formed internally amongst staff members, those with other conservation agencies or social develop- ment organizations, and with various levels of governmental agencies. Several grants were used by country offices to facilitate gender roundtable discussions, bringing together representatives from conservation and development organi- zations, government entities and academia to share lessons and information. Partnerships, particularly with the govern- ment, are crucial for sustainability and scalability of con- servation projects. Across multiple countries, interviewees noted that their research and insights on gender in the con- servation context was greatly appreciated by partners such as the Ministries of Environment, United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and
USAID.As one respondent noted ‘partners [now] invite me [to meetings] as a local resource person on gender [.. .] and I have influenced our partners about collecting sex- disaggregated data, particularly the gender focal people of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’, and another reported that ‘[because of this project] I worked
with the government’s Ministry of Natural Resources to develop the gender component of a report for a climate change resilience project (their staff had no idea how to approach it)’.
(6) Increased ability to access and steward funding with gender requirements One-third (5/15) of the respondents noted the benefit of the small grants in increasing staff com- petency in gender integration. They also noted that teams with expertise and skills related to gender issues can be more competitive in accessing funds from a wider array of sources, and can successfully steward funds that have strin- gent gender requirements (such as those noted above). To illustrate this point, one country office reported that ‘[be- cause of this gender project and research] we were ready to take on a new USAID project, which has a strong gender dimension’. Several others mentioned the grants as crucial to building staff capacity before getting Global Environment Facility (GEF) or Green Climate Fund-financed projects: ‘[the grant] allowed us to work with partners to produce the foundation of a gender mainstreaming plan for a GEF- funded project’.
The reported perceived costs of or challenges associated with gender integration fell into four main categories:
(1) Insufficient funding for staff time and activities All re- spondents pointed to staffing as one of the main barriers to effective gender integration. Conducting a gender analysis and adapting strategies and activities to address gender inequalities takes time and financial resources, sometimes requiring dedicated staff. Budgets for conservation pro- jects are often limited, with insufficient (if any) additional funds available for staff time and activities associated with ensuring gender-responsiveness. Because of this, gender is- sues are often an added responsibility for practitioners with an already full workload. Despite good intentions, gender considerations are thus easily dismissed or de-prioritized. As one respondent explained: ‘I try to incorporate addition- al outreach to women into proposal budgets (for traveling and workshops) but then budgets get cut and this is one of the first things to go’.
(2) Inadequate knowledge and skills of key project person- nel Many conservation practitioners are trained in natural sciences and do not have sufficient training or experience to effectively respond to the social nuances of conservation. This is particularly acute with the subject of gender, a topic with which many people are not comfortable. Two- thirds of respondents (10/15) reported that workshops, focus groups and follow-up meetings were the most effective strat- egies for capacity building.
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 853–859 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001295
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
