|
|
|
'Engendering' Eden: Women, Gender and ICDPs in Africa
|
|
|
Executive summary
|
| |
Historically, conservation processes in Africa have been heavily influenced by male-dominated
colonial powers. Even today, conservation organisations remain dominated by men. Communitybased
conservation has focussed on community wildlife management particularly of big game,
which can link well with men’s roles and relationships with natural resources but marginalises
women who may have a closer relationship with other resources such as plants. The gender
differences inherent in local communities have not been understood and accounted for. As such
decision-making processes have failed to be inclusive and only represented the more powerful
voices in the community – usually the men.
As pressures have increased for a more equitable conservation and development process, ICDPs
(Integrated Conservation and Development Projects) and CBNRM (Community Based Natural
Resource Management) have attempted to draw in women and other marginal groups. However
there is inexperience and a lack of knowledge concerning how to achieve this.
The ‘Engendering’ Eden research programme aimed to fill some of the existing gaps on issues
concerned with the relationships between women, gender and ICDPs. It aimed to understand
what differences and inequities exist within communities and how these affect participation and
the distribution of benefits and costs in relation to conservation and development. Lessons
concerning how to address gender issues and women's exclusion have been learnt and
recommendations made how to incorporate them into future work to achieve more equitable
conservation policy and practice.
Men and women in Africa are still highly dependent on the collection of natural resources for
fulfilling household needs and food security. The collection of such resources is gender
differentiated. Both environmental degradation and enforced protection and conservation have
limited communities’ access to resources. Due to women’s greater reliance on the collection of
resources on a day-to-day basis, such limitation has had a greater negative impact on them.
Women, compared to men, have less access to education and healthcare as well as security of
resources such as land. Their lack of control over resources and decisions pertaining to them
limits positive relationships with the environment. Poverty and the need to fulfil daily needs are
major constraints for women in terms of finding time or resources to invest in conservation and
environmental practices. Women tend to prioritise on a short-term basis, rather than thinking
long-term. This may conflict directly with conservation and environmental objectives. However, in
some cases both women and men have realised the long-term advantages of conservation and the
opportunities that exist.
Inaccurate assumptions have been made about the involvement of women in ICDPs – this has
been presumed to be of an equal level to men, however in the majority of cases it is not. Project
staff have failed to achieve a common understanding of gender issues nor agreed on an
approach to address them. There is a failure to develop strategic frameworks and policies for
mainstreaming gender issues. As a result, as gender issues arise they are then, and only then,
addressed, if at all. In general, gender is not approached in a knowledge- or experience-based,
strategic and organised manner, but has relied more on a haphazard ‘muddling through’, and
the use of skills and resources available at the time.
Many ICDPs in Africa focus specifically and/or mainly on women in their support of incomegenerating
activities. Many women tend to be more easily mobilised and have a greater
entrepreneurial spirit than men. Women’s groups have proved an important factor in the
implementation of such activities. Micro-credit and savings schemes are also supported. Such
schemes are seen as an entry point to other activities. They can bring social cohesion; build up
mobilisation; and open up other opportunities. Several ICDPs have recognised the importance of
working with local NGOs and/or governmental structures. Non-monetary based schemes are also being encouraged and proving successful. Training elements within ICDPs have increased. It has
been realised that, particularly for women due to a lack of education and capacity, training is
vital and must accompany other activities.
Despite these more successful elements it remains the case that the majority of ICDPs in the
region have failed to benefit women to any great degree. Though today ICDPs are indeed
focussing on a more inclusive, integrated approach and have recognised the need to address
gender issues, they still have a long way to go before they achieve more gender equitable
conservation and development. Only a handful of ICDPs identified during this study showed
really positive results.
There is still a lack of understanding about the differences that exist between men and women in
relation to natural resource use and conservation. As a result, ways to overcome such differences
or take account of them in conservation and development processes have not been initiated.
Women, more than men, have failed to understand the link between conservation and
development. In addition there is little recognition of the linkages between rights to resources
and conservation responsibilities. Mutual concerns and support are being replaced by
individualism and selfishness. Short-term priorities override long-term perspectives. A
dependency on ‘outside’ support has been cultivated.
In addition women’s lack of education is a debilitating factor that limits their participation in
many elements of ICDPs and natural resource management. Women are often very aware of this.
As a result they can lack confidence and self-esteem and feel incompetent and diffident. The
social position of a woman and the household from which she comes from can also be
important in understanding the ways in which women participate in community life and
activities.
Increasing women’s security and reducing the time that they spend fulfilling basic needs can be a
critical factor in providing time for women to focus on more conservation-oriented activities.
Support should be concentrated on empowering women to improve their ability to negotiate
their rights and influence management decisions. Women in particular often ‘miss out’ because
they are not able to attend meetings and decision-making forums. If women feel that their
knowledge is of value and it can contribute to conservation and development processes then
they are more happy and confident to share it. Such sharing draws women into the conservation
process and increases their ‘ownership’ over it and its impacts. This can then increase their
sense of responsibility.
National policies in support of women and more gender equitable society can be a useful entry
point and reference for the promotion of such issues in ICDPs. In addition projects should work
more closely with local NGOs addressing equity issues and women’s networks. The strengthening
and empowering of women can be supported through education. This can go hand in hand with
the promotion of more gender-equitable rights and policies.
Questions still arise as to whether a ‘gender’ or a ‘women’s’ approach should be the focus of
ICDPs. In most cases a mixture of the two is likely to be beneficial. In addition gender issues
should be more strategically approached and incorporated from the very design and planning of
projects rather than being ‘added on’ as the need is perceived. This should continue throughout
the life of the projects with time for adequate monitoring and evaluation, followed by reflection,
adaptation and restrategising as required. Local communities, including women, should be a
part of this process.
|
|
Related documents