Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 955–967 | Cite as

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

Article
  • 428 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Multifunctionality Agrobiodiversity Societal relations to nature 

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

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baier, A., V. Bennholdt-Thomson, and B. Holzer. 2005. Ohne Menschen keine Wirtschaft: Oder: Wie gesellschaftlicher Reichtum entsteht. München: Oekom Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, A. 2004. Vom Regenwald zum Schwarzwälder Hausgarten: Gender in der Biodiversitätsdebatte. Politische Ökologie 22(91–92): 66–68.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Becker, E., and T. Jahn (eds.). 2006. Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Brandth, B. 2002. Gender identity in European family farming: A literature review. Sociologia Ruralis 42(3): 181–200. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brookfield, H.C. 2001. Exploring agrodiversity. Perspectives in biological diversity series. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Christinck, A., and M. Padmanabhan (eds.). 2013. Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research. Weikersheim: Margraf.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1983. International undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: Resolution 8/83.Google Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Görg, C. 1999. Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Einstiege: Grundbegriffe der Sozialphilosophie und der Gesellschaftstheorie, 7. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Himmelweit, S., and S. Mohun. 1977. Domestic labor and capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1(1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.
  36. Kosoy, N., and E. Corbera. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1228–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kotschi, J. 2007. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for adapting to climate change. GAIA 16(2): 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhnen, F. 1982. Man and land. An introduction into the problems of agrarian structure and agrarian reform. Saarbrücken: Breitenbach.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Loccumer Protokolle, 30/07. Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. MEA – Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. The Millennium ecosystem assessment series. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nightingale, A. 2006. The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(2): 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opener metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. Schmitt, M. 1999. Geschlechtergrenzen in der Landwirtschaft. Alte Muster und neue Herausforderungen. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 47(2): 175–186.Google Scholar
  61. Schultz, I. 2003. ‘Gender & Environment‘. A Look at the Debate in Germany. In Dokumentation Wissenschaftliche Kolloquien 19992002, 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.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating diversity: Agrobiodiversity and food security. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  66. Thrupp, L.A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International affairs 76(2): 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turnhout, E., C. Waterton, K. Neves, and M. Buizer. 2013. Rethinking biodiversity: From goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters 6: 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Von Werlhof, C., M. Mies, and V. Bennholdt-Thomsen. 1983. Frauen, die letzte Kolonie: Zur Hausfrauisierung der Arbeit. Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch.Google Scholar
  74. Whatmore, S. 1991. Farming women: Gender, work, and family enterprise. Houndmills: Macmillan Academic and Professional.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sustainability GovernanceLeuphana University of LüneburgLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.Forum for Gender Competence in Architecture | Landscape | Planning (gender_archland)Leibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations