People Managing Forests

The Links Between Human Well-Being and Sustainability

Carol J.P Colfer, Yvonne Byron, Carol J. P. Colfer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781136522697
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Environmental Management
• Index: Biological Sciences

How do we extend the 'conservation ethic' to include the cultural links between local populations and their physical environments? Can considerations of human capital be incorporated into the definition and measurement of sustainability in managed forests? Can forests be managed in a manner that fulfills traditional goals for ecological integrity while also addressing the well-being of its human residents? In this groundbreaking work, an international team of investigators apply a diverse range of social science methods to focus on the interests of the stakeholders living in the most intimate proximity to managed forests. Using examples from North America, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, they explore the overlapping systems that characterize the management of tropical forests.
People Managing Forests builds on criteria and indicators first tested by the editors and their colleagues in the mid-1990s. The researchers address topics such as intergenerational access to resources, gender relations and forest utilization, and equity in both forest-rich and forest-poor contexts. A copublication of Resources for the Future (RFF) and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

SECTION ONE

Gender and Diversity in Forest Management

The question of identifying stakeholders for a given forest emerged as a critical issue in our research, from various perspectives. One of the first questions was how to identify those stakeholders whose well-being was most critical in sustainable forest management. In our research context, we concluded that seven dimensions could help us in making such an identification: proximity, preexisting rights, dependence, poverty, local environmental knowledge, a close link between the forest and the people’s culture, and a power deficit (Colfer and others 1999c). We suggested a “Who Counts Matrix” to help in identifying the most important stakeholders in the field.

However, several thorny issues on this subject remained. Intracommunity differences such as gender, age, and wealth are addressed in this section. The Who Counts Matrix can help us identify broad categories of people; however, in particular forests, we often find considerable variation in local patterns of resource use, control, and benefits. We also have found that accessing marginalized groups can be difficult (for example, see Burford de Oliveria 1997; Colfer and others 1997c; McDougall 1998). In our attempts to identify the relevant stakeholders, we have supplemented our efforts with focal group analysis (Colfer and others 1999a), stakeholder sampling, neural network analyses such as CATPAC (Colfer and others 1999b), and cognitive mapping software such as the Galileo program (see Chapters 5 and 6).

Although we do not attempt to present a comprehensive survey of the literature relating to gender and forests, we want to share some of the material that has influenced our thinking. Analyses tend to fall into two main categories: those that are oriented toward demonstrating or proving the important roles of women in forests, and those that document methods and frameworks for addressing gender issues in sustainable management. Both are relevant for the subsequent analyses within this book.

Some of the earliest studies of this topic come from the field of anthropology. Margaret Mead’s many works on gender-related issues are well-known. Building on growing theory about women’s roles in general during the 1960s and 1970s (for example, Dubisch 1971; Sanday 1974; Rogers 1978), several studies began to look at women’s roles in various contexts. Borneo—the island made up of East, West Central, and South Kalimantan, Indonesia; Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia; and the Sultanate of Brunei—where women hold comparatively high status, has spawned a particularly large number of such studies (Dove 1980; Colfer 1981, 1982, 1983a, 1985a, 1985b, 1991; Sutlive and Appell 1991; Tsing 1993). Other notable Asian studies addressing this area include collections by Goodman (1985) and Atkinson and Errington (1990); the works of Weiner (1976), Wickramasinghe (1994), and Elmhirst (1997); and any publications by Madhu Sarin.

In Africa, more has been written on women and agriculture than on women and forestry, but there are some notable exceptions. Leach (1994) offers one of the most interesting and comprehensive studies of gender. Any works by Louise Fortmann, John Bruce, or Diane Rocheleau—though more focused on agroforestry systems—are likely to provide important gender and forest-related insights (see also Stamp 1989; Sigot and others 1995).

In Latin America, Murphy and Murphy (1974) produced an early and excellent longitudinal study of men’s and women’s roles as they relate to the forests. Siskind (1973) is another pioneer in this field. Townsend and others (1995) use the words of women colonists directly in describing life on the frontier in Mexico and Columbia. Schmink (1999) is a guiding light in Latin American studies related to gender and forests.

Besides these largely ethnographic approaches, the interface between population and forest quantity and quality has been recognized and discussed (for example, Colfer 2000a). Sen (1994) provides a nice discussion of some of the issues. Indeed, many of the issues that Sen addresses are relevant for gender and human well-being more generally. Some authors have also written pertinent works on gender and poverty (for example, Jackson 1996; Razavi 1999).

Two particularly interesting “how to” manuals are the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Gender Analysis and Forestry Training Package (Wilde and Vainio-Mattila 1995) and the World Bank’s Participatory Development Tool Kit (Narayan and Srinivasan 1994; see also ISNAR 1997). Increasingly, literature relating to participation tends to include a chapter or two on gender and diversity issues.

However, we have concluded that a need remains for analyses specifically focused on the concerns of women and men and, indeed, people categorized by various means as they relate to formal forest management. Chapters 1–3 of this book examine this topic in more depth, in Indonesia and in Cameroon. As one might expect in interrelated systems, the topic reappears from time to time throughout this book.

In Chapter 1, McDougall discusses some recurrent problems that plague assessors when dealing with intragroup variation (for example, gender, ethnicity, age, and caste) from a theoretical standpoint. She then describes her own experience testing several methods in a forest-rich Bornean context in East Kalimantan, Indonesia (Long Loreh, Bulungan Research Forest), focusing on differential success with men and women and with different ethnic groups. Her points are critical to remember when considering the question of representation in assessment or in ongoing management or monitoring.

In Chapter 2, Tiani writes about the experiences of Cameroonian women, including ideal roles, gender-related perceptions, women’s particular uses of various forest products, and the different effects of change on men and women. She covers issues pertinent to most of the topics we address (stakeholder identification, security of intergenerational access to resources, and rights and responsibilities in management). Her contribution nicely demonstrates the futility of seeking single, direct causes in the interconnected systems that we are dealing with.

In Chapter 3, Brown and Lapuyade present the relationship between changing gender relations and forest use in central Cameroon. Their study site, Komassi, is in an area that has been logged consecutively for more than 50 years, but forest remains the dominant land cover. They primarily used rapid appraisal techniques and look at the differing perceptions of men and women about the changes that have occurred.

CHAPTER ONE

Gender and Diversity in Assessing Sustainable Forest Management and Human Well-Being

Reflections on Assessment Methods Tests Conducted in Bulungan, East Kalimantan, Indonesia

Cynthia L. McDougall

Gender and human diversity are critical dimensions of sustainable forest management (SFM) and human well-being (HWB). They are at the core of management decisions, tensions, and opportunities in tropical forestry. They also are complex and raise uncomfortable questions about the status quo and, as such, often appear to fit poorly with ambitious management or research agendas. For these reasons, despite their pivotal place in progress toward sustainable forestry, gender and diversity are often underplayed or even avoided in assessments of research and forest management.

In this chapter, I briefly explore the concept of gender and diversity analysis and its utility for assessing SFM and HWB (for management or research). My intent is to demystify the concepts through a theoretical discussion of gender and diversity analysis in HWB assessment that is supplemented by fieldwork examples. These examples are based primarily on my experiences with the HWB assessment and social criteria and indicators (C&I) methods test completed by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Long Loreh, Bulungan, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, with additional insights from the experiences of other CIFOR C&I methods researchers. The importance of recognizing the theoretical grounding of a research team vis-à-vis gender and diversity is highlighted.¹

Then, I briefly address some gender and diversity issues relating specifically to the C&I used in the East Kalimantan assessment. I explore some obstacles to the participation of women and other marginalized or less dominant groups of people in the assessment (or other research and forest management) processes and present some strategies for overcoming such barriers. I conclude with reflections on the HWB assessment process from a perspective of gender and human diversity analysis.

My overall goal is to contribute to the larger pool of wisdom on these issues so that more researchers, forest managers, and assessors can use gender and diversity approaches in their work and thereby effect the kind of longterm changes needed to maintain the world’s peoples and its forests.

Concepts, Rationale, and Analysis

Gender and human diversity are overlapping concepts that constitute analytical approaches for understanding the world around us. These approaches are dynamic and relevant to HWB and SFM for both ethical and practical reasons.

What Are Gender and Human Diversity?

The term gender is probably one of the most used and least understood or agreed upon terms in the field of SFM. It is commonly built into donor requirements and strategic plans for SFM and other development research and practices, yet it frequently is assigned different literal as well as implied meanings.

The primary confusion relates to the difference between the meanings of sex and gender. Whereas sex refers to the biological differences between women and men, gender is a social distinction that is culture-specific and changes across time (ISNAR 1997). In other words, individuals are born male or female² (a biological distinction) and, via gender (or engenderization), become men and women (a social distinction) by acquiring the culturally defined attributes of masculinity and femininity. Individuals then take on the appropriate roles and responsibilities for these categories (Sarin 1997).The second main area of confusion arises because, even within this framework, gender has been assigned different meanings by different users in various contexts. Hawkesworth (1997) identifies interpretations that range from “attributes of individuals” to “interpersonal relations” and from “modes of social organization” to “questions of difference and domination.” The confusion created by such various meanings clearly runs some risk of diluting the concept’s utility. Fortunately, this confusion has been resolved somewhat by a highlighting of the common thread that ties issues of the “psyche to social organization, social roles to cultural symbols, normative beliefs to the experience of the body and sexuality” (Hawkesworth 1997).³ This shared thread, relationships, can be understood as two interrelated aspects: gender as “a constitutive⁴ element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes,⁵ and gender as a primary way of signifying relationships of power” (Scott 1986).⁶ In other words, gender is both a key force or process that shapes or “socially constructs” relationships between men and women and a conceptual (or analytical) “torch” that points to or illuminates the distribution of power in those relationships.

Human diversity, more neglected than gender in discussions about SFM and related research, is an equally important concept. By human diversity, we refer not only to different ethnic groups but also to all the other significant dimensions of social and biological difference that crosscut gender and ethnicity, such as wealth, age, status, class, and caste.⁷ As J. Scott (cited in Hawkesworth 1997) suggests for gender, human diversity is a force that influences (constructs) social relationships on the basis of perceived differences, as a way of defining and understanding power relationships.

The Relationship between Gender and Diversity

Over the past decade, gender has received some much needed and long overdue attention in forestry and research circles. This attention, however, has also generated concern that it may be “competing” with other elements of human diversity. A feminist critique has emerged that the “multiple jeopardy characteristics of many women’s lives” (for example, race, economic status, and sexual orientation) raise serious concerns about generalizing gender as the primary analytical concept. Hawkesworth (1997) points out that if gender in reality “is always mediated by other factors such as race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, then an analytical framework that isolates gender … is seriously flawed.” This kind of oversimplification would only mask the complex and overlapping identities (and, in fact, the challenges or oppression) of numerous women and men. No individual can belong solely to a single group or category⁸ of people—everyone belongs to many different groups, including those based on ethnicity, wealth, or status. Various dimensions of diversity (or identity) can reinforce positions of relative empowerment or disempowerment. In other words, gender combines with other forms of diversity to establish roles, relationships, and power structures.

This kind of critique is vital to the discussion on gender and diversity. It does not diminish the validity of gender as an analytical tool but offers a clear warning that gender analysis could become a victim of its own success. Considering gender in isolation—thereby drawing attention away from other dimensions of diversity—would run counter to the very foundations of gender analysis: the awareness of power relationships. Such an imbalance in a research or forestry initiative, for example, would risk reducing equity as well as effectiveness in outcomes, because it would fail to seek and take into account the other critical differences among stakeholders.

This potential pitfall may be minimized by considering a twofold role for gender analysis. At the macro (or generic) level, gender is a concept that raises awareness of human differences and prevents assumptions of homogeneity. It serves this role well because it is universally present as a key dimension. As Sandra Harding (cited in Hawkesworth 1997) explains, “The fact that there are class, race, and cultural differences between women and men is not, as some ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• Introduction: History and Conceptual Framework
• SECTION 1. Gender and Diversity in Forest Management
• SECTION 2. A Conservation Ethic in Forest Management
• SECTION 3. Security of Intergenerational Access to Resources
• SECTION 4. Rights and Responsibilities to Manage Cooperatively and Equitably
• SECTION 5. Comparisons: Geographical and Temporal
• Concluding Remarks and Next Steps
• References
• Index