Marked separate roles of women and men in rural communities determine how they use and value nature. This knowledge is essential to avoid women exclusion from solutions to save nature.
The latest feminist struggle has a strong urban flavour, ignoring the vast inequalities between women and men in rural communities. This are the people whose life are interlinked with nature services and who directly suffer from the crisis of nature, and with whom people work to protect these services.
Humanity depends on nature to thrive and survive. Nature provides essential benefits to us, such as water, food and health. These benefits are known as ‘ecosystem services’2, a term used to name and place specific values. Nature is invaluable, but the value of ecosystem services helps inform governments about the state and threats to nature, to motivate the design of policy and interventions to protect nature.
In 2019, Dr. Matt Frodman and Dr. Katrina Brown from the University of Exeter analysed information gathered from eight coastal communities in Kenya and Mozambique in East Africa. The research looked to understand the relation of women and men to ecosystem services. More importantly, it measured the benefits of nature to the overall wellbeing of the communities.
The benefit for each person depends on their necessities and access to nature’s services. For example, women do not use motorcycles but walk or use public transport. Because of this traveling arrangements women cannot access distant mangrove forests or fish markets. If a project protects mangrove and fisheries, women will not have access to these resources. In this case this barrier causes men small fish traders make 3 to 4 times more income than mama karangas who are women small fish traders.
Mama Karangas buying fish in Mombasa, Kenya
Credit: EPSA-SPACE
For two years the researchers gathered information on households, labour practices, held discussion groups and even had participants portray their environment through photography3. All this information provided an insight into the different roles of women and men in these communities. What they found is that roles were shaped by religion, culture or tradition and affected income, type of job, level of knowledge and even how physical space was used differently by women and men. For example, the area covered by the ocean during high tide was used by men for fishing, but when the tide was low, it was used by women to collect shells.
The project also asked how they valued goods for their wellbeing. Women valued all goods more, even if they do not have access. Men valued more the goods they use, usually income-generating goods such as large fish, mangrove poles or tourism. This reflects women’s appreciation of the income to the household, while men do not appreciate the sustaining work of women.
Our planet needs healing, having a better understanding and more accurate perspective of how to sustain and relate to nature is important to find solutions. Frodman’s approach to understand gender differences in relation to nature services show that our actions for nature should be coupled with a social approach. In coastal communities in East Africa gender differences limit women access to natural resources, income, knowledge, mobility, time, livelihoods and ecosystem goods and services. This gender inequities need to be researched and included in all initiatives to protect and improve nature, particularly in poor communities. From a conservation perspective, including gender differences will make actions and policy more effective. From a social perspective, conservation work can continue to integrate targets that promote justice and gender equity.
What can we do?
Gender focus is the minimal requirement to generate sustainable environmental change, we need to understand that we are all different and start addressing these differences. I will advocate for a for should inform all conservation interventions and policy Differences between women and men To understand the differences between women and men this view must me incorporated starting at the design phase and specific actions can be taken to reduce gender gaps, while a gender perspective is maintained gender differences throughout the processes.
As outlined in the research, several methodologies are used to understand who uses natural resources and how they are being used. This data can only be gathered and implemented from a truly participatory strategy. Often it will demand using creative methods to assure participation and transparency of all involved considering gender roles and power relations. For example the use of photography with participant reflection and dialogue to understand perceived gender differences.
Credit: Photovoice
It is important in conservation actions to include clear approach on how to address gender differences in all types of interventions.
Conservation projects should include specific actions to promote gender equity. For example, one recurring factor that perpetuates these gender differences in communities across the world is different access to education. In the study sites, girls education was 1.5 years less than boys. In communities such as Diani in Kenya, this difference in education is a strong barrier to access better paying jobs in tourism. Supporting women’s education and leadership in their communities will reduce the education gap improving gender equity.
This condition is necessary to integrate both women and men in nature solutions to improve social and environmental conditions of their household and communities. Beyond these specific examples, what Fortman and Brown research ademonstrates is that conservation does not exist in silos and that in order to act accordingly and with the urgency of our times, an intersectional approach is a must within our conservation efforts. We all need nature, but now nature needs us both women and men protecting and healing her.
2 http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/19149/The_value_of_the_worlds_ecosystem_services_an.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y