One of the first professional positions I held was as a ‘Women in
Development Specialist’ in the early 1980s. Despite decades of
research, many of the problems identified in the 1970s and 80s persist:
the invisibility of women’s forest-related work for policymakers,
extension personnel, and even researchers; the inattention throughout
the value chain to the forest products women use; a lack of women’s
voices in policymaking, as well as in household decisions related to
forests; the inadvertent but adverse effects on women of well‑meaning
forestry programs.
The recent special issue on ‘Forests and Gender’ (International Forestry Review)
is a breath of fresh air. While the scientific forestry community has
been receptive to studies of women’s forest-related work, they have
found some of our more theoretical and qualitative studies a hard slog.
The use of terms such as ‘hegemony’, ‘symbolic representation’,
‘alterity’, and ‘habitus’ render such studies inaccessible to
foresters.
This special issue, however, is written in accessible language and
addresses important theoretical and practical topics that have passed
under the collective radar screen. The authors address women’s active,
if informal, forest management roles (for example, Bose, Brown, Lewark et al., Shackleton et al., Shanley et al.). Each paper goes beyond simple documentation to address broader issues.
Shackleton et al.
use cases from three African countries to demonstrate variability
across countries and non‑timber forest products (NTFPs) with regard to
value chain stages and differing gender impacts. The value chain theme
is also addressed by Purnomo et al.,
who conducted action research among Javanese furniture producers.
These papers suggest to policymakers and forest researchers the
importance of following forest products beyond the forest, of thinking
and acting with processes and processing in mind.
Bose
examines the effects of the recently enacted Forest Rights Act on two
tribal communities in northern India. Besides showing common unintended
adverse effects on women, she brings to light a common and potent
pattern that is rarely discussed: members of the more
male-dominant culture unthinkingly inserting their own assumptions
about gender roles into a much more egalitarian social system, with
potentially long‑lasting adverse effects. Important implications of her
study include both the need for further and more in‑depth social
research in forest communities, as well as further introspection among
policymakers about their own assumptions.
Many articles in the special issue emphasise the proactive nature of
women, which is important for overcoming the common view of women as
passive victims, unable to act in either their own or society’s
interests. Shanley et al. document
the evolving links between Brazilian human rights and conservation
movements, and the active roles of women in collective action and
networking. Women represent human resources that governments and
development workers have not yet sufficiently acknowledged or used for
the common good.
Sun et al.
use the long-term dataset generated by the International Forestry
Resources and Institutions research network, supplemented by interviews
and focus groups, to examine statistically the implications of
male‑dominated, mixed, and female-dominant user groups in four
countries. Mixed gender groups performed best in terms of forest
management, an interesting and somewhat surprising conclusion with
intriguing policy implications.
Djoudi and Brockhaus
examine men and women’s attitudes and perceptions about climate change
and the differing adaptation strategies each prefers, in two adjacent
communities in Mali. They reveal the importance of male migration and
the opportunities and disadvantages that male absence has for women. A
central implication of their work is the local human and ecological
variability, with the resulting challenge of developing policies that
capture and respond effectively to such differences.
Some authors studied policies directly. Bandiaky-Badji
traces the historical legal features in Senegal that have contributed
to women’s invisibility, including ubiquitous male
patron–client relationships, women’s lack of rights to land, and female
illiteracy. Brown
examines Cameroon’s policies on climate change, seeking evidence
(without finding much) that women’s interests are addressed in planning
and policy documents. Lewark et al.
assess the impacts of forest and NTFP certification on women in two
communities in Nepal, finding generally positive perceptions thereof.
Most articles give attention to local variation, whether between men
and women, among ethnic groups, in how forest products are used, and/or
over time and scale. Recurrent themes included women’s travel
constraints, illiteracy, lack of legal rights and informal norms that
discourage them from speaking up in public, all interfering with
women’s efforts to improve their circumstances in life and contribute
to better forest management.
Although there is little doubt that gender encompasses a range of
‘wicked problems’, this collection accompanies some encouraging trends:
1) the global research community’s increased sophistication in dealing
with the holistic nature of gender issues; 2) the development of
global mandates such as the Millennium Development Goals, several of
which feature gender; 3) the growing acceptability of participatory
approaches (needed to deal with the diversity and constraints in
addressing women’s issues); and 4) a healthy, if early, recognition of
men’s roles in gender issues.
Although we all recognise that difficult issues remain, this special
issue suggests that at last some significant progress is being made.
POLEX
POLEX is an initiative of the Center for
International Forestry Research to keep opinion leaders, policymakers
and researchers up to date on path-breaking research on forests.
POLEX was first launched in 1997. It is sent
each month to about 22,000 stakeholders in the forestry sector
worldwide. It is translated into French, Spanish, Indonesian and
Japanese. Each message includes a concise highlight of a timely and
important research report.
Although CIFOR manages the list, the content
of the messages reflects only the views of the authors of the original
research and the author of the message. They do not necessarily reflect
official views of CIFOR as an institution.
We are very interested in your feedback
regarding POLEX and your suggestions for interesting reports we might
promote through the list. Please send them to cifor-polex@cgiar.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment