Advertisement

Why Gender Matters to Ecological Management and Poverty Reduction

  • Isabel Gutierrez-Montes
  • Mary Emery
  • Edith Fernandez-Baca
Chapter

Abstract

Gender issues in conservation and rural development have been a topic of ­discussion within research and development institutions since the 1980s. Women have been excluded from many programs and projects both because of the traditional values of some cultures and because of the prejudice inherent in many development efforts of the time. Lack of participation in development programs has had long-term implications not only for the women themselves, but also for their children. Furthermore, focusing exclusively on men meant many programs failed to attain their goals for several reasons. In some cases, the information given to men was not communicated to women who were responsible for applying the information. In other cases, the focus of the project pertained to women’s work and often the men who received the information or participated in the demonstration projects did not know what questions to ask. Some efforts targeted at men had adverse effects on women by changing agricultural processes in ways that negatively impacted women and their children. For example, the focus on cash crops often led to a decrease in subsistence farming and degradation of soils and, thus, increased food insecurity. Traditional views of development and of aid programs were based upon assumptions about who did what work and who made what decisions, which were not always reflective of reality. Thus, programs that intended to increase access to household resources were targeted at the male head of the household with the assumption that knowledge and information would trickle down to the rest of the household. These approaches also made unfounded assumptions about knowledge and knowledge transfer. A focus on gender has helped to broaden our understanding of how people learn and what skills and techniques are useful in effectively transferring information and expertise from one context to another. Women’s demands that their voices be heard led to an ­understanding of the importance of recognizing and valuing local knowledge as part of an information exchange. The focus on gender encouraged a deeper look at equity issues, not just those related to gender, but also in relation to the role of technology transfer and how technologies can impact groups of people differently. In some cases, new technologies introduced and adopted by one group can lead to increased burdens for others. Thus, the introduction of motor bikes increased men’s freedom and range of action, but increased the burden of work for those left behind. The critiques of development emerging from the analysis of gender have led to a deeper understanding of how societies function and how change occurs within particular societies. These analyses were important to formulating policies that support endogenous development.

Keywords

Social Capital Natural Resource Management Cultural Capital Poverty Reduction Natural Capital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adato, M. and S. Feldman. 2001. Safety Nets. In Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds). Empowering women to achieve food security. Focus 6. Policy Brief 11 of 12. IFPRI. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Adhikari, J.R. 2001. Community Based Natural Resource Management in Nepal with Reference to Community Forestry: A Gender Perspective. A Journal of the Environment, Vol. 6, No. 7: 9–22.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, B. 1994. A field of one’s own: gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambrigde.Google Scholar
  4. Aguilar, L. and I. Castañeda. 2002. En búsqueda del género perdido, equidad en áreas protegidas. San José, Ed. Absoluto. 224 p.Google Scholar
  5. Akerkar, S. 2008. Disaster Mitigation and Furthering Women’s Rights: Learning from the Tsunami. Gender Technology and Development 11(3): 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amaya. N. 2008 Market access and gender roles in the Jatun Mayu watershed communities (Tiraque, Bolivia). Women in Development Discussion Series at Virginia Tech. Unpublished presentation.Google Scholar
  7. Bosch O. J. H. , C. A. King, J. L. Herbohn, I. W. Russell and C. S. Smith. 2007. Getting the Big Picture in Natural Resource Management—Systems Thinking as ‘Method’ for Scientists, Policy Makers and Other Stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res. 24: 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burchfield, S., H. Hua, D. Baral and V. Rocha. 2002. A Longitudinal Study of the Effect of Integrated Literacy and Basic Education Programs on Women’s Participation in Social and Economic Development in Nepal. Girl’s and Women’s Education, Office of Women in Development. United States Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  9. Cabrera, I.R., E. Zapata Martelo and V. Vazquez Garcıa. 2001. Gender, rural households, and biodiversity in native Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CATIE (Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza) 2007. CATIE’s Approach to Rural Poverty Reduction. CATIE. Discussion Paper. Turrialba, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  11. Chambers, Robert 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  12. CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). 1995. Report on the CGIAR Gender Program. Working Paper No. 11. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Curry-Roper, Janel M. 2000. Embeddedness in Place: Its Role in the Sustainability of a Rural Farm Community in Iowa. Space and Culture 3: 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiappe, M.B. and C.B. Flora. 1998. “Gendered Elements of the Sustainable Agriculture Paradigm.” Rural Sociology. 63(3): 372–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dikito-Wachtmeister, M. S. 2001. Social Capital. In Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds). Empowering women to achieve food security. Focus 6. Policy Brief 9 of 12. IFPRI. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  16. DFID. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Available from: http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html.
  17. Emery, M. and C.B. Flora. 2006. “Spiraling Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Community Capitals Framework.” Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 37: 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faisal I.M. and M.R. Kabir. 2005. An Analysis of Gender–Water Nexus in Rural Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Societies 21: 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández-Baca, E. 1996. Learning with farmers how to document resources. ILEIA Newsletter. Vol 12(1): 24–25.Google Scholar
  20. Fernández-Baca E.C. 2006. Modernization and development as part of the globalization process: Holistic participatory community development in a community in the Mantaro Valley, Peru. PhD Dissertation. Iowa State University, Ames Iowa.Google Scholar
  21. FIDA. 2003. La mujer como agente impulsor del cambio. Documento Temático.Google Scholar
  22. Flora, C. B. 2000. Measuring the social dimensions of managing natural resources. In Fulton, D.C., K.C. Nelson, D.H. Anderson, and D.W. Lime (eds). Human dimensions of natural resources management: emerging issues and practical aplications. St. Paul, MN: Cooperative Park Studies Program, University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.Google Scholar
  23. Flora, C. B. 2001. Access and control of resources: lessons from the SANREM CRSP. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flora, J. L. 1998. Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociology 63(4): 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flora, Cornelia B., J.L. Flora and S. Fey. 2004. Rural communities: legacy and change. Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fundación Arias para la Paz y el Progreso Humano 2002. De cuidadoras a propietarias: Tierra, agua y biodiversidad en América Latina. San José, Costa Rica.Google Scholar
  27. Grewal I. and C. Kaplan, 2006. An Introduction to Women’s Studies: Gender in a Transnational World. McGraw-Hill Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Gutiérrez-Montes, I.A. 2005. Health Community Equal Healthy Ecosystem? Evolution (And Breakdown) of a Participatory Ecological Research Project Towards a Community natural Resource Management Process, San Miguel Chimalapa, Mexico. PhD Dissertation. Department of Sociology Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  29. Howard, P. 2003. The Major Importance of ‘Minor’ Resources: Women and Plant Biodiversity. Gatekeeper Series No.112. Natural Resources Group and Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
  30. Johansen, O. B. 1991. Introducción a la teoría general de los sistemas. Limusa. Mx.Google Scholar
  31. Karremans, J.A.M. 1994. Análisis de género, Conceptos y Métodos. CATIE. Turrialba, C.R.Google Scholar
  32. Kelkar, M. 2007. Local Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelkar G. and D. Nathan 1996. The Woodfuel Crisis: the Need for Gender Analysis. Bulletin of Science Technology Society. 16:122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meinzen-Dick, R., M. Adato, L. Haddad and P. Hazell. 2004. Science and poverty: an interdisciplinary assessment of the impact of agricultural research. Washington D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Moghadam, Valentine M. 2005. The ‘feminization of poverty’ and women’s human rights. Gender Equality and Development Section Division of Human Rights, Social and Human Sciences Sector UNESCO.Google Scholar
  36. Momsen, J.H. 2007. Gender and Biodiversity: A New Approach to Linking Environment and Development. Geography Compass 1(2): 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nyasimi, M.K. 2006. Changing capitals, shifting livelihoods: case study of Luo community living on Awach catchment of Lake Victoria Basin, Western Kenya. Master in Science Thesis in Anthropology and Sustainable Agriculture. Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  38. Oever van der, P. 1991. La mujer y el manejo de los recursos naturales; qué hay de especial en esta relación?. Recursos, mujer y naturaleza. 4 (1): 5–6.Google Scholar
  39. Paris, T. R., H.S. Feldstein, and G. Duron. 2001. Technology. In Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds). Empowering women to achieve food security. Focus 6. Policy Brief 5 of 12. IFPRI. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  40. Poats, S. 2000. Género en el manejo de los recursos naturales con referencia al programa Minga del CIID. Final Report.Google Scholar
  41. Power, J. 1993. The report on rural women living in poverty. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development.Google Scholar
  42. Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2001. Empowering women to achieve food security: overview. In Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds). Empowering women to achieve food security. Focus 6. Policy Brief 1 of 12. IFPRI. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  43. Quisumbing, A. R. and B. McClafferty. 2006. Food security in practice: Using gender research in development. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington. D.C.Google Scholar
  44. Revelo, A., H. Tamayoy and R. Villalobos. 1995. Género y manejo de recursos naturales. UICN. San José. C.R.Google Scholar
  45. Sachs, C. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schmink, M. 1998. Marco Conceptual para el Análisis de Género y Conservación con Base Comunitaria. IN: Poats, S., Arroyo, P. Y R. Asar, (Eds.) Genero y Manejo Sustentable de Recursos: Examinando los Resultados. Proc. of MERGE Program International Conference. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO/ MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton, UK: IDS. Available from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/Wp72.pdf.
  48. Sharma, M. 2001. Microfinance. In Quisumbing, A. and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds). Empowering women to achieve food security. Focus 6. Policy Brief 10 of 12. IFPRI. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  49. Valdivia, C. 2001. Gender, livestock assets, resource management, and food security: lessons from the SR-CRSP. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valdivia, C. y J. Gilles.2001. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagle, U. 2002. Rethinking Poverty: Definition and Measurement. International Social Science Journal. 54(171): 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Westermann, O., J. Ashby and J. Pretty. 2005. Gender and Social capital: the importance of gender difference for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Development 33(11):1783–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zwarteveen, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2001. Gender and property rights in the commons: Examples of water rights in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 18: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabel Gutierrez-Montes
    • 1
  • Mary Emery
    • 2
  • Edith Fernandez-Baca
    • 3
  1. 1.Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE)Cartago, TurrialbaCosta Rica
  2. 2.Bioeconomy InstituteIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  3. 3.Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN)LimaPeru

Personalised recommendations