2.6 FORESTS
revealed that greater numbers of women in decision- making positions did little to change perceptions of the fairness of rules and penalties. The authors caution against policy advice advocating “carte blanche participation without carefully understanding the type of women’s participation that can make a difference” (Coleman and Mwangi 2013).
Gender equality and sustainable forest management – a win-win relationship?
While many study results confirm that there a positive relationship between more inclusive community forestry institutions and better forest conditions (and increased distributional equity) a simple “win-win” relationship between gender equality and the environment cannot be assumed. First, such a relationship does not always exist everywhere (UN Women 2014; Villamor et al. 2014; Mwangi et al. 2011). The assumption of a universal positive relationship between women’s involvement in forest decision-making and improved forest conditions risks providing misguided policy recommendations (Arora-Jonsson 2011) as well as entrenching gender stereotypes and inequalities (UN Women 2014). Support to increasing women’s involvement in decision-making for the improved efficiency of forest conservation programmes, for example, is often based on gendered roles in the collection, management and use of forest products and resources.
Programmes that support women’s increased participation in order to achieve environmental targets risk “feminizing” the responsibility for sustainable forest management. By adding environmental tasks to women’s existing productive and reproductive responsibilities, such programmes may overburden women (Arora- Jonsson 2011). Simplistic approaches to community- based forestry, by merely pushing for women’s increased participation, also risk overlooking the local and non- local economic, cultural and socio-political processes that shape the ways women and men acquire and articulate environmental knowledge (Larson et al. 2015; Arora-Jonsson 2010; Agarwal 2001). Expecting women to save forests without assessing their resources and traditional role in family care might jeopardize both the social and environmental outcomes of community forestry programmes (Leach 2007).
Second, equating women’s involvement in natural resource management with better environmental outcomes risks “instrumentalizing” gender equality.
Should the right of women (and other marginalized groups) to partake in community forestry and the decisions that directly affect their lives be conditioned on the grounds that this would lead to improved forest condition or increased biodiversity? Likewise, interventions aimed at sustainability, such as community forestry, do not always translate into gender equality (UN Women 2014; Villamor et al. 2014; Mwangi et al. 2011; Arora-Jonsson 2010). While strong synergies exist between women’s participation and the resilience of community institutions, distributional equity, forest cover and biodiversity, environmental sustainability and gender equality should also be seen as two interlinked albeit separate goals.
Thirdly, portraying women as socially and economically marginal, as well as pro-environment, risks reinforcing stereotypes of women as both vulnerable victims and sustainability saviours (UN Women 2014; Arora- Jonsson 2011). When these stereotypes are situated in a binary conceptualization of gender, they also risk more or less implicitly portraying all men (especially in developing countries) as oppressors and perpetrators of environmental crime. Furthermore, perceiving this relationship between excluded women and excluding men as the sole power struggle within community forestry risks overlooking differences and inequalities among – or affecting – women and men based on various other socio-economic factors such as ethnicity, class, age and religion. This underscores the importance of both understanding gender as a contextual and intersectional concept and viewing women (like men) as individual agents, constrained by structures of varying flexibility, whose identities, preferences and aspirations cannot be reduced to simplistic, general and often empirically unfounded stereotypes.
Biodiversity and forest management policy – towards a green economy and gender equality
Women, bio-prospecting and the Nagoya Protocol
To date, most international conventions and forest and biodiversity related policies recognize the importance of women’s empowerment and of participation by indigenous and local communities in conservation. The Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological
163
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 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242
