Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:12:28.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Tackling Gender Inequality through Forest-Related Policies and Programmes

Global Challenges, Multi-scale Innovations and Local Experiences

from Part I - Wicked Problems and Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2020

By
Marlène Elias ,
Bimbika Sijapati Basnett  and
Jennie Dey de Pryck
Edited by
William Nikolakis  and
John L. Innes
William Nikolakis
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
John L. Innes
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access

Summary

Addressing gender inequality is a core goal in the global development agenda. Gender inequality in forest landscapes is a ‘wicked problem’, where deep-seated socioeconomic and ideological causes are difficult to recognize and address, not only because they are context- and culture-specific across and even within countries, but also because they involve multiple (male and female) stakeholders with different and sometimes conflicting interests and different positions within power hierarchies. The alliances and tensions inherent in such complex stakeholder relationships may work with or against other desirable forest outcomes, and defy simple or superficial solutions. In this chapter, three forest policies are examined through the lens of gender equality: the devolution of forest management to local communities; payments to communities for sustaining forest-based global public goods; and forest certification. These policies have generated positive gender equality outcomes, but these also (re)produce gender discrimination through formal and informal institutions. More holistic approaches are required to address gender inequality in forest policies, which directly target gender and social relations, and strengthen women’s participation in forest governance.

Keywords

GenderGender equalityForest policyWicked problemsOutcomes
Type
Chapter
Information
The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
 , pp. 167 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29(10):1623–1648.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2002. The hidden side of group behaviour: a gender analysis of community forestry groups. Pages 185–208 in Heyer, J., Stewart, F., and Thorp, E., editors. Group Behaviour and Development: Is the Market Destroying Cooperation? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics 68(11):2785–2799.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2010. Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy of Women’s Presence within and beyond Community Forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agarwal, B. 2015. The power of numbers in gender dynamics: illustrations from community forest groups. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42(1):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. C.. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27:629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A. and Hardin, R.. 2008. Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, New Series 320(5882):1460–1462.Google Scholar
Alford, J. and Head, B. W.. 2017. Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society 36:397–413.Google Scholar
Andersson, K. and Agrawal, A.. 2011. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Global Environmental Change 21(3):866–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C. and Gash, A.. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4):543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arwida, S. D., Maharami, C. D., Sijapati Basnett, B. and Yang, A. L.. 2017. Gender-Relevant Considerations for Developing REDD+ Indicators: Lessons Learned for Indonesia. CIFOR Info Brief 168. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Baland, J. M. and Platteau, J. P.. 1999. The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development 27(5):773–788.Google Scholar
Bee, B., Rice, J. and Trauger, A.. 2015. A feminist approach to climate change governance: everyday and intimate politics. Geography Compass 9(6):339–350.Google Scholar
Bee, B. and Sijapati Basnett, B.. 2016. Engendering social and environmental safeguards in REDD+: lessons from feminist and development research. Third World Quarterly 38(4):787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benerìa, L., Floro, M., Grown, C. and MacDonald, M.. 2000. Introduction: globalization and gender. Feminist Economics 6(3):vii–xviii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692–1702.Google Scholar
Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Kassam, S. N., and Hassan, A. W.. 2014. Understanding Gender and Poverty Dimensions of High Value Agricultural Commodity Chains in the Souss-Masaa-Draa Region of South-Western Morocco. ICARDA working paper. Amman: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Blaikie, P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11):1942–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, A.B., Duchelle, A. E., Angelsen, A., et al. 2017. Comparing methods for assessing the effectiveness of subnational REDD plus initiatives. Environmental Research Letters 12(7):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandhoke, N. 2003. Governance and the pluralisation of the state: implications for democratic citizenship. Economic and Political Weekly 38(28):2957–2968.Google Scholar
Chant, S. 2016. Women, girls and world poverty: empowerment, equality or essentialism? International Development Planning Review 38(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Chant, S. and Sweetman, C.. 2012. Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in development, Gender & Development 20(3):517–529.Google Scholar
Cleaver, F. 2002. Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European Journal of Development Research 14(2):11–30.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. A. and Mwangi, E.. 2013. Women’s participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change 23:193–205.Google Scholar
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N. and Martinez Tuna, M.. 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17:365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dey de Pryck, J., Elias, M. and Sijapati Basnett, B.. 2019. Globalization and employment in forests and tree value chains: are women losing out? Pages 347–380 in Farcy, C., Martinez de Arano, I., and Rojas-Briales, E., editors. Forests in the Midst of Global Changes. Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Dey de Pryck, J. and Termine, P.. 2014. Gender inequalities in rural labor markets. Pages 343–370 in Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J. A. and Peterman, A., editors. Gender in Agriculture. Closing the Knowledge Gap. Rome: FAO and Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djoudi, H. and Brockhaus, M.. 2011. Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forests in northern Mali. International Forestry Review 13(2):123–135.Google Scholar
Doss, C., Kieran, C. and Kilic, T.. 2017. Measuring Ownership, Control, and Use of Assets. Policy Research Working Paper 8146. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunaway, W.A. 2014. Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, M. 2015. Shades of green and REDD: local and global contestations over the value of forest versus plantation development on the Indonesian forest frontier. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 56(1):48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgert, L. 2012. Certified discourse? The politics of developing soy certification. Geoforum 43(2):295–304.Google Scholar
Elias, M. 2010. Transforming Nature’s Subsidy: Global Markets, Burkinabè Women and African Shea Butter. PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Elias, M. and Arora-Jonsson, S.. 2016. Negotiating across difference: gendered exclusions and cooperation in the shea value chain. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(1):107–125.Google Scholar
Elmhirst, R. J., Siscawati, M., Sijapati Basnett, B. and Ekowati, D.. 2017. Gender and generation in engagements with oil palm in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: insights from feminist Political Ecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 44(6):1135–1157.Google Scholar
Esquivel, V. 2016. Power and the sustainable development goals: a feminist analysis. Gender and Development 24(1):9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, K., Larson, A. M., Mwangi, E., et al. 2014. Field Guide to Adaptive Collaborative Management and Improving Women’s Participation. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research. Available at: www.cifor.org/library/5085/field-guide-to-adaptive-collaborative-management-and-improving-womens-participationGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How Are the World's Forests Changing? 2nd edition. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Farcy, C., De Camino, R., Martinez de Arano, I. and Rojas-Briales, E.. 2016. External drivers of changes challenging forestry: political and social issues at stake. Pages 87–105 in Larocque, G. R., editor. Ecological Forest Management Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D. 2016. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1993. Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegde, N., Elias, M., Lamers, H. A. H. and Hegde, M.. 2016. Engaging local communities in social learning for inclusive management of native fruit trees in the Central Western Ghats, India. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 1:65–83.Google Scholar
IFC. 2016. Investing in Women along Agribusiness Value Chains. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group.Google Scholar
Indrarto, G.B., Murharjanti, P., Khatarina, J., et al. 2012. The Context of REDD+ in Indonesia: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Working Paper 92. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Julia, J. and White, B.. 2012. Gendered experiences of dispossession: oil palm expansion in a Dayak Hibun community in West Kalimantan. Journal of Peasant Studies 39:995–1016.Google Scholar
Kasente, D. 2012. Fair Trade and organic certification in value chains: lessons from a gender analysis from coffee exporting in Uganda. Gender & Development 20(1):111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khadka, M., Karki, S., Karky, B. S., Kotru, R. and Darjee, K. B.. 2014. Gender equality and challenges to REDD+ initiative in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 34(3):197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinschmit, D., Sijapati Basnett, B., Martin, A., Rai, N. D. and Smith-Hall, C.. 2015. Drivers of forests and tree-based systems for food security. Pages 87–110 in Vira, B., Wildburger, C. and Mansourian, S., editors. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series 33. Vienna: IUFRO.Google Scholar
Kumar, K., Singh, N. M. and Kerr, J. M.. 2015. Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: moving to a rights-based approach. Forest Policy and Economics 51:1–8.Google Scholar
Larson, A. M., Dokken, T., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2015. The role of women in early REDD+ implementation: lessons for future engagement. International Forestry Review 17(1):43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A. M., Solis, D., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2018. Gender lessons for climate initiatives: a comparative study of REDD+ Impacts and subjective wellbeing. World Development 108:86–102.Google Scholar
Le Mare, A. 2008. The impact of Fair Trade on social and economic development: a review of the literature. Geography Compass 2(60):1922–1942.Google Scholar
Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management group affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence 5(6):1–10.Google Scholar
Lewark, S., George, L. and Karmann, M.. 2011. Study of gender equality in community based forest certification programmes in Nepal. International Forestry Review 13(2):195–204.Google Scholar
Li, T. 2015. Social Impacts of Oil Palm in Indonesia: A Gendered Perspective from West Kalimantan. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. F. 2012. Certifying in contested spaces: private regulation in Indonesian forestry and palm oil. Third World Quarterly 33(10):1871–1888.Google Scholar
McDougall, C., Ojha, H., Banjade, M., et al. 2008. Forests of Learning: Experiences from Research on an Adaptive Collaborative Approach to Community Forestry in Nepal. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., et al. 2012. Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Mukasa, C., Tibazalika, A., Mwangi, E., et al. 2016. Strengthening Women’s Tenure Rights and Participation in Community Forestry. InfoBrief No. 155. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, L. 2004. Inequality, differential technology for resource extraction and voluntary collective action in commons. Ecological Economics 49(2):215–230.Google Scholar
Mwangi, E. 2007. Subdividing the commons. Distributional conflict in the transition from collective to individual property rights in Kenya’s Maasailand. World Development 35(5):815–834.Google Scholar
Myers, R, Larson, A. M., Ravikumar, A., et al. 2018. Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change 50:314–324.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. J. 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forestry and Livelihoods 2(1):17–24.Google Scholar
North, D. C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(2):97–112.Google Scholar
Peach Brown, H. C. 2011. Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa. International Forestry Review 13(2):163–176.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cirera, V. and Lovett, J. C.. 2006. Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: a local user groups model. Ecological Economics 59(3):341–352.Google Scholar
Poteete, A. and Ostrom, E.. 2004. Heterogeneity, group size, and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Development and Change 35(3):435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razavi, S. 2016. The 2030 Agenda: challenges of implementation to attain gender equality and women’s rights. Gender and Development 24(1):25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razavi, S. and Miller, C.. 1995. From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse. Occasional Paper 1. Geneva: UNRISD.Google Scholar
Rice, J. 2010. Free trade, fair trade and gender inequality in less developed countries. Sustainable Development 18:42–50.Google Scholar
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2012. What rights? A comparative analysis of developing countries’ national legislation on community and indigenous peoples’ forest tenure rights. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in Forest Tenure Reform since 2002. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
Röling, N. G. and Jiggins, J.. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. Pages 281–301 in Röling, N.G. and Wagemakers, M. A. E., editors. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarin, M. 2001. Empowerment and disempowerment of forest women in Uttarakhand, India. Gender, Technology and Development 5(3):341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarker, D. and Das, N.. 2002. Women’s participation in forestry: some theoretical and empirical issues. Economic and Political Weekly 37(43):4407–4412.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2000. Social Exclusion: Concept, Application and Scrutiny. Social Development Papers No. 1. Manila: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Sijapati Basnett, B., Gyncy, S. and Anandi, C. A. M.. 2016. Transforming the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil for Greater Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. Information Brief 166. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Smaller, C., Sexsmith, K., Potts, J. and Huppé, G.. 2016. Promoting Gender Equality in Transnational Agricultural Investments: Lessons from Voluntary Sustainability Standards. Paper presented at the 2016 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Smith, S. 2013. Assessing the gender impacts of Fairtrade. Social Enterprise Journal 9(1):102–122.Google Scholar
Stiem, L. and Krause, T.. 2016. Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo: implications for REDD+. International Forestry Review 18(1):110–122.Google Scholar
Stuart, E. and Woodroffe, J.. 2016. Leaving no-one behind: can the Sustainable Development Goals succeed where the Millennium Development Goals lacked? Gender and Development 24(1):69–81.Google Scholar
Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., et al. 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use. A global comparative study. World Development 64:56–66.Google Scholar
UN Women. 2014. World Survey on the Role of Women in Development 2014: Gender Equality and Sustainable Development. New York: UN Women Institutional Report, UN Women.Google Scholar
UN-REDD. 2011. The Business Case for Mainstreaming Gender in REDD+. Geneva: UN-REDD Programme Report, UN-REDD.Google Scholar
Upadhyay, B. 2005. Women and natural resource management: illustrations from India and Nepal. Natural Resources Forum 29(3):224–232.Google Scholar
Varughese, G. and Ostrom, E.. 2001. The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development 29(5):747–765.Google Scholar
Vira, B. 2005. Deconstructing the Harda experience: limits of bureaucratic participation. Economic and Political Weekly 40(48):5068–5075.Google Scholar
Vira, B., Wildburger, C. and Mansourian, S.. 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series 33. Vienna: IUFRO.Google Scholar
Westholm, L. and Arora-Jonsson, S.. 2015. Defining solutions, finding problems: deforestation, gender, and REDD+ in Burkina Faso. Conservation and Society 13(2):189–199.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2012. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×