858 K. Westerman
measures across all relevant projects, regardless of specific donor requirements. There is a large body of literature focused on improving
gender expertise amongst development practitioners (e.g. Moser & Moser, 2010; Ferguson, 2014; Mehra et al., 2020), and increasing opportunities for practitioners to develop relevant skills (e.g. the GenderPro Credential; George Washington University, 2021). Likewise, there are numerous studies focused on social science expertise in conservation (e.g. Mascia et al., 2003; Fox et al., 2006; Bennett et al., 2016; Bennett et al., 2017), but relatively little has been pub- lished specifically about building gender expertise in the con- servation sector, to which this work contributes. Although the conservation community can benefit from the lessons learned on gender issues in the development sector, there are fundamental differences that make a direct application of these lessons challenging. Three key differences include (1) the goals of conservation, (2) training of conservation practitioners and (3) societal norms in remote locations. The first difference is rooted in what is considered to be
the end goal, and how social aspects and gender specifically relate to this goal. Development projects focus on improved outcomes for people (e.g. health, education, livelihoods), whereas in conservation the desired outcome is usually environmental (e.g. ha of forest under better management, number of fish species in a protected area). And although people play a crucial role in achieving conservation goals, and the importance of working with people is now well established, involvement of local communities in conserva- tion projects is still often considered ameans to an end. For gender specifically, whereas its fundamental role in efforts to improve health, education and livelihoods is clear, its sig- nificance in efforts to bettermanage forests or protect threat- ened species is less obvious. Secondly, conservation training is still too often focused on
natural sciences alone, despite a long-standing recognition that considering both social and natural aspects is critical for con- servation (Mascia et al., 2003;Fox et al., 2006;Roy et al., 2013; Bennett et al., 2017;Gardner, 2021). This may be even more true of universities in theGlobal South,wheremany conserva- tion practitioners are trained (Meli et al. 2019). Without fun- damental training in social sciences, and specifically in gender- related issues, conservationists will struggle to apply the les- sons from development.Whereas the development commu- nity is now routinely incorporating gender into project design and delivery, many in the conservation community are still considering why gender needs to be incorporated. Thirdly, many development efforts focus on densely pop-
ulated areas (where education or health interventions can reach the largest number of people), whereas conservation efforts often occur in remote areas. Societal and cultural norms in remote locations are often, although not always, more conservative in terms of gender stereotypes, roles and responsibilities. Conservation practitioners must thus
walk a fine line between advancing gender and social equity, while also operating in a culturally appropriate way (for ex- ample when a community may not currently allow women to be in decision-making spaces). Although these challenges may also be present in development efforts in larger popu- lation centres, they are generally more acute in remote settings, and lessons from development often cannot be ap- plied directly. It is for these reasons that more research is urgently
needed that focuses on the specific nexus of gender and con- servation practice and how to best equip conservation prac- titioners. We conducted this research specifically to gather perceptions from field-based conservation practitioners, rather than gender specialists. Although some conservation actors prefer to consult external gender experts on the de- sign and sometimes implementation of gender-related pro- jects, building in-house capacity amongst those staff and partners who work directly on community-based conserva- tion is an important way to mainstream gender. As conser- vation practitioners may be more inclined to listen to each other rather than to gender specialists, given their shared objectives and training, our research can help to shift prac- titioner dialogue and conservation practice to be more open towards and considerate of gender issues. This research is limited by the fact that it focused on a
small, self-selected sample of conservation practitioners. The practitioners involved in managing these grants and in the subsequent review had already demonstrated an interest in gender (as they were responsible for applying for the grant and implementing the project). Nevertheless, these practitioners operated in field offices and with col- leagues who were not necessarily as attuned to gender is- sues and were in a good position to speak to the challenges and lack of awareness amongst their colleagues. Despite being geographically diverse, our sample is therefore not ne- cessarily representative of conservation professionals more broadly. In addition, the research was entirely qualitative in nature, based on reports and interviews, and did not in- clude any quantitative measures (e.g. documenting an in- crease in the number of women participating in project activities) to back up the reported perceptions. We were also not able to directly link gender-related interventions to improved conservation outcomes (e.g. better governance or natural resource management). Further research on these projects could provide additional insights, for example on the longer-term impacts of gender-responsiveness on pro- ject design and delivery as well as those related to conserva- tion success (including community buy-in, governance and biodiversity/climate goals). Further research on methods to build conservation practitioners’ skills and expertise on gen- der, and documenting and sharing practical methods to ad- dress the common challenges that practitioners face, will help to move beyond gender policies and good intentions, towards effective and sustainable implementation and results.
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
