Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nature–gender relations within a social-ecological perspective on European multifunctional agriculture: the case of agrobiodiversity

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We view agrobiodiversity as a social-ecological phenomenon and, therefore, an example of nature–gender relations within agrarian change, including social, economic, political and technical changes in agriculture and rural areas. As a result of the industrialization of agriculture, nature–gender relations in the field of agrobiodiversity have become characterized by separation processes such as conservation versus use or subsistence versus commodity production. We argue that the sustainable development paradigm, as currently implemented in European Common Agricultural Policy through the concept of multifunctionality, does not necessarily overcome separation tendencies and lead towards integration, despite its claim to bring together different ecological, economic and social needs. In our paper we critically reflect this observation and develop a theory-based analytical framework at the interface of nature and gender relations. For analytical purposes we distinguish between three different agrarian structures (pre-industrialized, industrialized and multifunctional) and focus on the development of two separation tendencies within them and their effects on agrobiodiversity. Concerning nature, we discuss the effects of separating agrobiodiversity conservation and use. With regard to gender, we discuss the separation of subsistence and commodity production. Against this background, we claim for new rural economic rationalities characterized by processes whose qualitative, material and value dimensions maintain agrobiodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BMF:

Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Federal Ministry of Finance)

CAP:

Common Agricultural Policy

CBD:

Convention on Biological Diversity

COP:

Conference of the Parties

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

MEA:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

OECD:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SCBD:

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

UNCED:

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

References

  • Baier, A. 2004. Subsistenzansatz: Von der Hausarbeitsdebatte zur “Bielefelder Subsistenzperspektive”. In Handbuch Frauen-und Geschlechterforschung: Theorie, Methoden, Empirie, ed. R. Becker, and B. Kortendiek, 72–77. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A., V. Bennholdt-Thomson, and B. Holzer. 2005. Ohne Menschen keine Wirtschaft: Oder: Wie gesellschaftlicher Reichtum entsteht. München: Oekom Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A. 2004. Vom Regenwald zum Schwarzwälder Hausgarten: Gender in der Biodiversitätsdebatte. Politische Ökologie 22(91–92): 66–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E., and T. Jahn. 1989. Soziale Ökologie als Krisenwissenschaft. Sozial-ökologische Arbeitspapiere Nr. 1, 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E., and T. Jahn. 2005. Societal relations to nature: Outline of a critical theory in the ecological crisis. German edition published 2003 In Kritische Theorie der Technik und der Natur, eds. G. Böhme, and A. Manzei, 91–112. München: Wilhelm Fink. http://www.isoe.de/ftp/darmstadttext_engl.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2016.

  • Becker, E., and T. Jahn (eds.). 2006. Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesecker, A., and S. Hofmeister. 2010. Focus: (Re)productivity. Sustainable relations both between society and nature and between the genders. Ecological Economics 69(8): 1703–1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMF—Bundesministerium der Finanzen. 2012. EU-Agrarpolitik. Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik (GAP). http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Themen/Europa/EU_auf_einen_Blick/Politikbereiche_der_EU/EU_Agrarpolitik/eu_agrarpolitik.html#doc167132bodyText5. Accessed 25 March 2014.

  • Brand, U., and A.B.M. Vadrot. 2013. Epistemic selectivities and the valorisation of nature: The cases of the nagoya protocol and the intergovernmental science-policy platform for biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Special Issue on Fairness on Biodiversity Politics and the Law: Interrogating the Nagoya Protocol. Law, Environment and Development Journal 9(2): 202–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandth, B. 2002. Gender identity in European family farming: A literature review. Sociologia Ruralis 42(3): 181–200. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, H.C. 2001. Exploring agrodiversity. Perspectives in biological diversity series. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CBD—Convention on Biological Diversity. 1995. COP 2 decision II/15: FAO global system for the conservation and utilization of plant gentic resources for food and agriculture. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7088. Accessed 12 January 2015.

  • CBD—Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000. COP 5 decision V/5: Retired sections: Paragraphs 1-2, 8, 20–21 and 28–29. Agricultural biological diversity: Review of phase I of the programme of work and adoption of a multi-year work programme. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7147. Accessed 22 December 2014.

  • Christinck, A., and M. Padmanabhan (eds.). 2013. Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research. Weikersheim: Margraf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, E. 1999. Agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods: Issues and entry points. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8286.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2013.

  • Durand, G., and G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: A general framework. In Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development, ed. G. Van Huylenbroeck, and G. Durand, 1–16. Aldershot Hampshire and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, J.M.M., and D. Wood. 1999. Conservation of agrobiodiversity. In Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, utilization and management, ed. D. Wood, and J.M. Lenné, 355–386. Wallingford: CABI Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1983. International undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Resolution 8/83.

  • FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. Women-users, Preservers and managers of agro-biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0171e/x0171e03.htm. Accessed 25 January 2016.

  • FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Building on gender, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge: A training manual. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y5956e/y5956e00.htm. Accessed 9 January 2015.

  • Feindt, P. H. 2007. Agrarpolitk im 21. Jahrhundert - Konflikte, Wahrnehmungen und Verständigungsbedarf. In Agrarpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert: Wahrnehmungen, Konflikte, Verständigungsbedarf, eds. P. H. Feindt, and J. Lange, 13-26.

  • Gafsi, M., G. Nguyen, B. Legagneux, and P. Robin. 2006. Sustainability and multifunctionality in French farms: Analysis of the implementation of Territorial Farming Contracts. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 463–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg, C. 1999. Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Einstiege: Grundbegriffe der Sozialphilosophie und der Gesellschaftstheorie, 7. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

  • Hawkins, R., and D. Ojeda. 2011. Gender and environment: Critical tradition and new challenges. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(2): 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hediger, W., and K. Knickel. 2009. Multifunctionality and sustainability of agriculture and rural areas: A welfare economics perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 11(4): 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelweit, S., and S. Mohun. 1977. Domestic labor and capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1(1): 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.L. 2003. Women & plants: Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. New York and Eschborn: Zed Books and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, D., and I. Schultz. 2011. Geschlechterverhältnisse und gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse—Perspektiven Sozialer Ökologie in der transdisziplinären Wissensproduktion. In Körper. Raum. Transformation.: Gender-Dimensionen von Natur und Materie, eds. E. Scheich, and K. Wagels, 218–233. Forum Frauen-und Geschlechterforschung, 32. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

  • Inhetveen, H., and M. Schmitt. 2004. Feminization trends in agriculture: Theoretical remarks and empirical findings from Germany. In Women in the European countryside, ed. H. Buller, and K. Hoggart, 83–102. Aldershot and Hants: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhetveen, H. 2004. Nachhaltigkeit und Biodiversität im Land- und Gartenbau—geschlechtersensibel betrachtet. In Gender Mainstreaming im Naturschutz, eds. D. Hayn, and BfN—Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 67–81. Münster: BfN-Schriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag.

  • Jacobs, S. M. 2010. Gender and agrarian reforms, ed. J. Momsen, and J. Monk, Routledge international studies of women and place. 9. New York: Routledge.

  • Jahn, T., and P. Wehling. 1998. Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse—Konturen eines theoretischen Konzepts. In Soziologie und Natur: Theoretische Perspektiven, ed. K.-W. Brand, 75–93. Soziologie und Ökologie, 2. Opladen, New York: Leske + Budrich.

  • Jax, K., D.N. Barton, K.M.A. Chan, R. de Groot, U. Doyle, U. Eser, C. Görg, E. Gómez-Baggethun, Y. Griewald, W. Haber, R. Haines-Young, U. Heink, T. Jahn, H. Joosten, L. Kerschbaum, H. Korn, G.W. Luck, B. Matzdorf, B. Muraca, C. Neßhöver, B. Norton, K. Ott, M. Potschin, F. Rauschmayer, C. von Haaren, and S. Wichmann. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics 93: 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jochimsen, M., and U. Knobloch. 1997. Making the hidden visible: The importance of caring activities and their principles for any economy. Ecological Economics 20(2): 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassam, A., and T. Hodgkin. 2009. Rethinking agriculture: Agrobiodiversity for sustainable production intensification. http://agrobiodiversityplatform.org/climatechange/2009/05/14/rethinking-agriculture-agrobiodiversity-for-sustainable-production-intensification/. Accessed 22 July 2015.

  • Kosoy, N., and E. Corbera. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1228–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotschi, J. 2007. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for adapting to climate change. GAIA 16(2): 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnen, F. 1982. Man and land. An introduction into the problems of agrarian structure and agrarian reform. Saarbrücken: Breitenbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langthaler, E. 2012. Balancing Between Autonomy and Dependence Family Farming and Agrarian Change in Lower Austria, 1945–1980. In Austrian Lives, eds. G. Bischof, F. Plasser, and E. Maltschnig, 385–404. Contemporary Austrian studies. 21.

  • Loccumer Protokolle, 30/07. Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum.

  • Marsden, T. K. 2003. The condition of rural sustainability: Issues in the governance of rural space in Europe. In The reform of the CAP and rural development in Southern Europe, eds. C. Kasimis, and G. Stathakis, 19–38. Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  • Marsden, T.K. 2006. The road towards sustainable rural development: Issues of theory, policy and practice in a European context. In Handbook of rural studies, ed. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney, 201–212. London: Sage Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA – Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. The Millennium ecosystem assessment series. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mölders, T., A. Burandt, and A. Szumelda. 2012. Herausforderung Nachhaltigkeit. Sozial-ökologische Orientierungen für die Entwicklung ländlicher Räume. Europa Regional 18(2/3): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mölders, T. 2014. Multifunctional agricultural policies—pathways towards sustainable rural development? International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 21(1): 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro de Wit, M. 2016. Are we losing diversity? Navigating ecological, political and epistemic dimensions of agrobiodiversity conservation. Agriculture and Human Values 33: 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, A. 2006. The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(2): 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opener metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1219–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, P. 1994. Out of the shadows. Women on family farms and their contribution to agriculture and rural development. In Rural gender studies in Europe, eds. L. van der Plas, and M Fonte, 50–65. European Perspectives on Rural Development. Assen: Van Gorcum.

  • OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/40782727.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2016.

  • Padmanabhan, M. 2011. Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity. A feminist social-ecological approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40: 968–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padmanabhan, M. 2016. Intraface: Negotiating gender-relations in agrobiodiversity. Special issue: (Bio-) Diversität, Geschlecht und Intersektionalität. Freiburger Zeitschrift für GeschlechterStudien (fzg), vol. 22, ed. V. Kuni, M. Mangelsdorf, and M. Pregernig, 85–105.

  • Perkins, H.C. 2006. Commodification: Re-resourcing rural areas. In Handbook of rural studies, ed. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney, 243–257. London: Sage Publ.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prügl, E. 2004. Gender orders in German agriculture: From the patriarchal welfare state to liberal environmentalism. Sociologia Ruralis 44(4): 349–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00281.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prügl, E. 2010. Gendered knowledge in the postmodern state: The case of agricultural trade liberalization in Europe. In Gender knowledge and knowledge networks in international political economy, eds. B. Young, and C. Scherrer, 115–129. Feminist and Critical Political Eonomy. 3. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

  • Rodenstein, M., S. Bock, and S. Heeg. 1996. Reproduktionsarbeitskrise und Stadtstruktur: Zur Entwicklung von Agglomerationsräumen aus feministischer Sicht. In Agglomerationsräume in Deutschland: Ansichten, Einsichten, Aussichten, ed. ARL—Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, 26–50. Forschungs-und Sitzungsberichte. 199. Hannover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung.

  • Sachs, C. 2006. Rural women and the environment. In Rural gender relations: Issues and case studies, ed. B.B. Bock, and S. Shortall, 288–302. Wallingford: CABI Pub.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • SCBD—Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Global biodiversity: Outlook 3. Montréal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-final-en.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2016.

  • Schäfer, C., M. Gutiérrez, L. Klemp, G. Henne, and A. Müller. 2002. The convention on biological diversity: Ensuring gender-sensitive implementation. Eschborn: GTZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. 1999. Geschlechtergrenzen in der Landwirtschaft. Alte Muster und neue Herausforderungen. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 47(2): 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. 2003. ‘Gender & Environment‘. A Look at the Debate in Germany. In Dokumentation Wissenschaftliche Kolloquien 1999—2002, eds. U. Paravicini, and M. Zempel-Gino, 43-55. Niedersächsischer Forschungsverbund für Frauen-, Geschlechterforschung in Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin: Wissenschaftliche Reihe NFFG. 2. Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH.

  • Schultz, I., D. Hummel, and D. Hayn. 2006. Geschlechterverhältnisse. In Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen, ed. E. Becker, and T. Jahn, 224–235. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shortall, S. 2006. Gender and rural politics: An overview. In Rural gender relations: Issues and case studies, ed. B.B. Bock, and S. Shortall, 243–251. Wallingford: CABI Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, T.M. 1994. The economics of extinction revisited and revised: A generalised framework for the analysis of the problems of endangered species and biodiversity losses. Oxford Economic Papers, Special Issue on Environmental Economics 46: 800–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating diversity: Agrobiodiversity and food security. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrupp, L.A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International affairs 76(2): 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., C. Waterton, K. Neves, and M. Buizer. 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters 6: 154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCED—United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. AGENDA 21. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2016.

  • Van der Ploeg, J. D. 2008. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan publishes in association with the International Institute for Environment and Development.

  • Van Huylenbroeck, G., and G. Durand (eds.). 2003. Multifunctional agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Aldershot Hampshire, Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen, K. 1997. Claims of culture. Social representations of nature and their consequences for agriculture. In Images and realities of rural life: Wageningen perspectives on rural transformations, eds. H. de Hann, and N. Long, 287–305. Assen: Van Corcum.

  • Vazquez-Garcia, V. 2008. Gender, ethnicity, and economic status in plant management: Uncultivated edible plants among the Nahuas and Popolucas of Veracruz. Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values 25(1): 65–77. doi:10.1007/s10460-007-9093-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Werlhof, C., M. Mies, and V. Bennholdt-Thomsen. 1983. Frauen, die letzte Kolonie: Zur Hausfrauisierung der Arbeit. Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. 1991. Farming women: Gender, work, and family enterprise. Houndmills: Macmillan Academic and Professional.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, F. 2004. Industrial transformation and agriculture: Agrobiodiversity loss as sustainability problem. In Governance for industrial transformation: Proceedings of the 2003 Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change, eds. K. Jacob, M. Binder, and A. Wieczorek, 338–355. FFU report, 04–03. Berlin: Environmental Policy Research Centre.

  • Wood, D., and J.M. Lenné. 1999. The origins of agrobiodiversity in agriculture. In Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, utilization and management, ed. D. Wood, and J.M. Lenné, 15–34. Wallingford: CABI Pub.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sustainability Governance, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Scharnhorststraße 1, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany

    Annemarie Burandt

  2. Forum for Gender Competence in Architecture | Landscape | Planning (gender_archland), Leibniz University Hannover, Herrenhäuserstraße 8, 30419, Hannover, Germany

    Tanja Mölders

Authors
  1. Annemarie Burandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanja Mölders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Mölders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burandt, A., Mölders, T. Nature–gender relations within a social-ecological perspective on European multifunctional agriculture: the case of agrobiodiversity. Agric Hum Values 34, 955–967 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9763-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9763-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation