Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 995–1006 | Cite as

Exclusions in inclusive programs: state-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India

Article
  • 250 Downloads

Abstract

We critically discuss the impact of sustainable development initiatives in Kerala, India, on biodiversity and on women farmers in the matrilineal Adivasi community of the Kurichya-tribe in Wayanad. By contextualizing development programs regarding the specifically gendered access to land, division of labor, distribution of knowledge and decision-making power, we situate our analysis within the theoretical framework of feminist political ecology. We first outline women’s gaining of social and political space in local self-government institutions (Panchayath) and then critically discuss the impacts of women’s farming groups (Joint Liability Groups: JLGs). Decentralization and development programs have aimed at empowering women and reducing poverty through improved food security. However, little success has materialized, as patriarchal power structures concerning decision-making processes as well as control over the most valuable resources (land and rice) and traditional knowledge have been maintained. Whereas women’s self-help groups (Kudumbasree) in Kerala have enhanced their position, women’s farming groups (JLGs), by contrast, have brought little betterment. In some cases they have even downsized women’s management and knowledge of resources related to agriculture and do not integrate or enhance Kurichya women’s knowledge. As some women are now introducing high-yielding rice seeds and fertilizer and as it is impossible for them to control land and get access to traditional rice seeds—the domain of men—we contest the notion of women being considered the preservers of agrobiodiversity. We argue, rather, that the construction and transformation of ecological traditional knowledge is highly dependent on the gendered multi-scaled power structures of state and community.

Keywords

Gender Agrobiodiversity Feminist political ecology (FPE) 

Abbreviations

ADS

Area Development Samithi

CDS

Community Development Samithi

DfID

British Department for International Development

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FPE

Feminist Political Ecology

JLGs

Joint Liability Groups

NHG

Neighborhood Groups

NPP

National Perspective Plan for Women

SC

Scheduled Castes

ST

Scheduled Tribes

UNECED

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

WED

Women, Environment and Development

WID

Women in Development

References

  1. Agarwal, B. 1994. A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, B. 1992. The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhaskaran, S., S. Jayasree, and A. Vijayan. 2006. Women in Panchayathi Raj. Thiruvananthapuram: Sakhi Women’s resource Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Biehl, J. 1991. Rethinking ecofeminist politics. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buch, N. 2010. From oppression to assertion: Women and Panchayats in India. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chakko, K.D. 1994. Kurichyarude lokam. Trivandrum: Kerala Bhasha Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2004. Introduction: repositioning feminisms in development. IDS Bulletin 35(4): 1–10. (Special Issue Repositioning Feminisms in Gender and Development).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2007. Gender myths and feminist fables: Struggles for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change 38(1): 1–20. (Special Issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dankelman, I., and J. Davidson. 1988. Women and environment in the third World: Alliance for the future. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Dankelman, I. 2003. Introduction: Gender, environment and sustainable development: understanding the linkages. In Natural resources management and gender: A Global source book, ed. M. Valk, S. Cummings, and H. van Dam, 13–20. Oxford: Oxfam Publisher.Google Scholar
  11. Elmhirst, R. 2011. Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2): 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmhirst, R., and B.P. Resurreccion. 2008. Gender, environment and natural resource management: New dimensions, new debates. In Gender and natural resource management: Livelihoods, mobility and interventions, ed. B.P. Resurreccion, and R. Elmhirst, 3–22. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  13. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Building on gender, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge: A training manual. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y5956e/y5956e00.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
  14. Fulvio, M. 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n5/full/7400693.html. Accessed 1 July 2015.
  15. Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3): 151–156. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/indigenous_knowledge_for_biodiversity_conservation.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
  16. Howard, P. 2003. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, C. 1993. Women/nature or Gender/history? A critique of ecofeminist “development”. Journal of Peasant Studies 20(3): 389–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jewitt, S. 2000. Unequal knowledges in Jharkhand, India: De-romanticizing women’s agroecological expertise. Development and Change 31(5): 961–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar, N.A., G. Girigan, and P. Parameswaran. 2010. Genetic erosion and degradation of ecosystem services of wetland rice fields: A case study from Western Ghats, India. In Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective, ed. S. Lockie, and D. Carpenter, 137–153. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  20. Leach, M. 2007. Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change 38(1): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menon, V. 2012. Cultural knowledge and heritage conservation at the cross-roads of museum and anthropology. Humankind 8: 51–60.Google Scholar
  22. Mies, M., and V. Shiva. 2014. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  23. Münster, U., and V. Suma. 2012. In the jungle of law: Adivasi rights and implementation of forest rights act in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly 47(19): 38–45.Google Scholar
  24. Oommen, M.A. 2004. Deepening decentralised governance in rural India: Lessons from the people’s plan initiative of Kerala. http://www.csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/11.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
  25. Padmanabhan, M. 2011. Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity: A feminist social-ecological approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40(6): 968–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ravivarma, K.T. 2004. Matrilini: Tribal matriliny and northern practices. Thiruvanandapuram: State Institute of languages.Google Scholar
  27. Rocheleau, D. 1994. Participatory research and the race to save the planet: Questions, critique, and lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2): 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. 1996. Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Rodda, A. 1991. Women and the environment. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  30. Shand, H. 1997. Human nature: Agricultural biodiversity and farm-based food security. Ottawa: RAFI—Rural Advancement Foundation International.Google Scholar
  31. Shiva, V. 1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  32. Sontheimer, S. 1991. Women and the environment: A reader. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  33. Suma, T.R. 2014. Customary vs state laws of land governance: Adivasi joint family farmers seek policy support. The case of Kurichya joint families in Wayanad, Southern India. Rome: International Land Coalition.Google Scholar
  34. Valdivia, C., and J. Gilles. 2001. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vayaleri, K. 1996. Kurichyarude jeevithavum samskaravum [The life and culture of Kurichyas]. Trivandrum: Current Books.Google Scholar
  36. Vedavalli, L., and N.A. Kumar. 1998. Case study. Wayanad, Kerala. In Gender dimensions in biodiversity management, ed. M.S. Swaminathan, 96–106. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Véron, R. 2001. The “new” Kerala model: Lessons for sustainable development. World Development 29(4): 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Community Agrobiodiversity Centre, M.S. Swaminathan Research FoundationWayanadIndia
  2. 2.Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies (Focus Southeast Asia)University of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations