Photo credit: Ronnie Vernooy

THE SOCIAL NATURE OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

In most regions of the world, the sustainable management of natural resources, including biodiversity, requires the involvement of multiple social actors or stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement refers to the active and meaningful participation of small farmers (both men and women), large farmers, entrepreneurs, local authorities, local groups, non-governmental organization (NGO) staff and policy makers in decision-making processes concerning the use, management and conservation of natural resources. This includes the analysis of problems and opportunities, the definition of research and development initiatives, and the monitoring and assessment of action and plans. It often also includes working together to reconcile conflicting or divergent points of view and interests. In particular, the active involvement of NGOs, local governments, grassroots groups and farmer associations is now a feature in many participatory, natural resource management initiatives.

In such an approach, it is imperative to address both the ecological and sociological aspects of natural resource (management) dynamics. This usually means looking at larger landscape units, such as, for example, a watershed or a micro-watershed, a community forest or rangeland. It requires dealing systematically with the changing and often complex interactions among components of a natural resource system or a production system, such as farming, fishing, forestry, herding, collecting edibles or combinations of these. It also requires considering the historical, socioeconomic and political forces that influence these interactions. These forces in turn are defined by such variables as class, gender, age and ethnicity.

Foremost, it implies learning from the women and men living in rugged mountainous areas, desert margins, stressed coastal basins and other marginal areas, who are struggling to make a living under often very difficult conditions. The key questions to answer are: How do these people construct and perceive what is happening in their community, watershed or region? How do they view what we call the management of natural resources? What is their interest in participatory action research processes and do they see them as a way to create more room to manoeuvre? Are local women farmers and fishers interested in joining professional researchers in a collaborative effort to analyse their situation and to design, test and assess new or adapted management practices?

These considerations lead to exploring such processes as the generation, distribution and use of knowledge. Of particular interest is the study of the social and gender relations and configurations that condition access, tenure, entitlements, claims and rights to natural resources, including the social dynamics of change, adaptation and resilience. It also raises the cultural and political nature of research methods and practices.

This book documents and reflects on an initiative that recognizes the steps that researchers are already taking to implement social and gender analysis (SAGA) research including questions of class, caste and ethnicity in natural resource management. It presents learning studies from six diverse research teams in the field. The teams are from India, Nepal, China, Viet Nam and Mongolia.

NATURAL RESOURCE USE IN ASIA: TRENDS AND PROBLEMS

Despite rapid industrialization and urbanization in Asia, most people remain directly dependent on a productive natural resource base for their livelihood. Unfortunately, pressures on this resource base are increasing. Urban-biased industrial development and non-locally managed international investments in export-oriented resource development are leading to degradation of those resources. Resettlement due to displacement, voluntary migration (mostly by men, such as in China) and historical conflicts exacerbate the pressures. Rural populations have increased rapidly because of improvements in basic health and living conditions. This leads to expansion of cultivated land, even into areas that are ecologically fragile or inappropriate for permanent cultivation. Within communities, marginalization processes are common. Systems of tenure and access to resources are complex, as traditional, culturally specific systems are modified by colonial and state regulations that may be changing rapidly with national economic policy reforms.

Problems related to the sustainable management of natural resources are most critical in the uplands and coastal areas, where natural resource degradation can often lead to irreversible loss of food sources and the breakdown of ecosystems with loss of habitat. In Asia there is widespread privatization of natural resources, such as forests and coastal areas, that were previously managed collectively. Privatization may lead to productivity increases in the short term, but it also frequently increases poverty because poor people who previously had access to these resources are now excluded. Conventional policies and research have often discounted the role of local people in the design and implementation of measures, projects and programmes, and are often blind to social differentiation.

Although circumstances differ in different countries, there is a striking convergence of interest in questions of local resource management. In some countries structural adjustment is leading to reductions in the technical and enforcement capability of the state. In others major policy transitions are affecting all aspects of government interventions in the economy. External pressures due to expanding trade and investment and large-scale development projects in parts of the region previously isolated from international markets are also having a dramatic effect on local resources. At the same time, local governments and grassroots organizations are becoming more assertive and articulate in their identification of resource questions—and the expression of their views and interests.

THE CHALLENGE OF INTEGRATING SOCIAL AND GENDER ANALYSIS INTO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

The complexity of societies in Asia and the problems of natural resource management are considerable. Notions of gender (the socially constructed roles and characteristics assigned to men and women in a specific culture), class, caste, ethnicity and age are integral to understanding the social relations and decision-making processes concerning access to, and use and management of natural resources. A sound understanding of social differences and social inequality are key to finding answers to the questions outlined in the previous sections. Simple answers are unlikely, as Kabeer (2003: 193) points out:

Gender relations, like all social relations, are multi-stranded: they embody ideas, values and identities; they allocate labour between different tasks, activities and domains; they determine the distribution of resources; and they assign authority, agency and decision-making power. This means that gender inequalities are multi-dimensional and cannot be reduced simply to the question of material or ideological constraint. It also suggests that these relationships are not always internally cohesive. They may contain contradictions and imbalances, particularly when there have been changes in the wider socio-economic environment.

Who participates in development (research) interventions, projects, programmes, and policies? How exactly? Who benefits from them? Who remains excluded or isolated? These are becoming crucial questions to be considered and integrated into intervention strategies if the aim is to support the more equitable—and sustainable—use of natural resources and the derived benefits.

Some policy makers, activists and researchers in the region recognize the need to reflect on and integrate social and gender equity, particularly as it relates to participation, inclusion and exclusion, decision making and power relations. Agarwal (2001: 1623) has forcefully drawn attention to processes of exclusion in the case of the formation and operation of community forest groups:

Ostensibly set up to operate on principles of cooperation, such [community forestry] groups are meant to involve and benefit all sections of the community. Yet effectively they can exclude significant sections, such as women. These 'participatory exclusions' (that is exclusions within seemingly participatory institutions), constitute more than a time-lag effect. Rather, they stem from systemic factors and can, in turn, unfavourably affect both equity and institutional efficiency.

Studies such as Agarwal's improve our understanding of these key social and political processes informed by gender and other variables. However, the practical and context-specific implementation of more socially sensitive research and development interventions in relation to biodiversity and natural resource management remains a very difficult process for many. Most of the social and gender analysis in natural resource management is primarily at the conceptual level. There are few effective learning programmes that focus on systematic capacity building for gender and social analysis in applied research in this field. There are even fewer initiatives that systematically document and analyse this kind of capacity-building process.

The challenge of integrating SAGA into natural resources and biodiversity research are, therefore, many (Vernooy and Fajber 2004: 210):

1. Knowledge of and experience in social science research among natural resource management researchers and research managers is limited.

2. Social science components are not well integrated with natural science components in most research efforts.

3. Researchers and research organizations have different starting points, interests and expertise in terms of social and gender issues.

4. 'Gender blindness' or the refusal to acknowledge the importance of gender issues is common in research and research policy making.

5. Short-term training has limited impact.

6. Resources in the area of SAGA and natural resource management in Asia are not widely available.

7. Networking has potential benefits but operationally is not easy.

Integrating SAGA requires sound institutional analysis of how production and reproduction are organized at household and community levels and how these relate to (inform and are informed by) the market and the state.¹ Several recent studies show how this can be done effectively. By collecting a series of detailed case studies from around the world, Howard (2003) shows how gender relations inform biodiversity management and conservation, and why, in several cases, women predominate—particularly in the management of local plant biodiversity. In an example related to crops and biodiversity, Farnworth and Jiggins (2003: 5) note: 'One of the strong reasons why different men and women, and women of different backgrounds, have different [varietal] preferences is because they relate to the food chain in different ways, and often at different times and places.'

In summary, integrating SAGA into research is important in developing a better understanding and awareness of the social and power relations that govern access to, use of and control over natural resources. This involves understanding the differences and the inequities of social actors and is dependent on the local contexts.

Shifting the focus from fixed identities to positions of power and powerlessness opens up new possibilities for addressing issues of equity. In practical development terms, this implies more of a role for participatory approaches to explore, analyze and work with the differences that people identify with, rather than for identifying the 'needs' of predetermined categories of people. This calls for an approach that is sensitive to local dimensions of difference and works with these differences through building on identifications rather than superimposed identities. (Cornwall 2000: 28–29)

It is also important for facilitating the recognition of the social and gendered nature of technologies, policies and interventions. Policies and technologies are value-laden; women and men and different social groups are involved and affected differently.

Gender-awareness in policy and planning requires a prior analysis of the social relations of production within relevant institutions of family, market, state, and community in order to understand how gender and other inequalities are created and reproduced through their separate and combined interactions. (Kabeer 1997: 280–81)

A last reason for integrating SAGA into research is to create space for social actors (women and men) to manoeuvre and to enhance the bargaining and negotiating power of marginalized and discriminated groups, leading to empowerment and transformation where they have more access to, control over and benefits from natural resources.

Home economists, health planners, agricultural planners, the environment lobby have all targeted women in their plans on the basis of narrowly defined perceptions of what women do. The problem is that women, particularly poor women, do simultaneously undertake many of these roles and responsibilities, often without pay; hence their longer hours of work. Development interventions, designed and implemented by individual sectors with very little coordination between them, generate conflicting demands on women's time and energy. Such interventions are either doomed to failure (thereby confirming planners' worst fears about women's irrational behaviour) or else result in the intensified exploitation of women's labour. (ibid.: 270)

THE 'LEARNING STUDIES' PROJECT

To address this situation and as a direct response to requests from our Asian research partners for more field-based training and exchange of practical experiences and methods in implementing SAGA in the field, two programmes of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)—Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Asia and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (SUB)—developed a novel 'umbrella' or multiple-component, capacity-building programme. The programme (Supporting Capacity Building for Social/Gender Analysis in Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management in Asia: An Umbrella Activity) was approved in 2002 and implemented step-wise (Vernooy and Fajber 2004: 209–10).

In Asia the diversity of cultures and languages reinforces the need for locally relevant methods and training approaches, a concern frequently expressed by IDRC partners. There is significant criticism that most methods and concepts are grounded in 'Western' thought and are not always applicable in the social and cultural contexts in which our partners are working. Therefore, the capacity-building programme strives to work with research partners to develop and adapt tools and methods to culturally relevant conditions, including language and learning examples.

The programme objectives are:

1. to support the integration and practical application of SAGA at the field level through training and support programmes;

2. to develop culturally appropriate (or adequate) approaches and tools for SAGA in natural resource management research;

3. to support interactive south–south networking and information exchange among researchers interested in integrating SAGA into natural resource management research;

4. to build capacity within institutions to mainstream gender in project activities and within the institutions themselves; and

5. to document best practices and progress made by researchers toward integrating SAGA into natural resource management research in Asia (process and outputs of objectives 1 to 4).

One of the activities implemented as part of the programme is called the 'Learning Studies' project. Initiated in 2002, this project recognizes the steps that researchers are already taking in implementing SAGA research in natural resource management and documents both the successes and failures that illustrate learning in this process. The project brings together six diverse research teams from five Asian countries representing both academic and non-academic sectors, a variety of research organizations, and researching a number of natural resource management questions, including biodiversity conservation, crop and livestock improvement, and sustainable grassland development:

1. Sikkim/West Bengal, India: The Eastern Himalayan Network (EHN). The EHN team includes Chanda Gurung, a gender and natural resource management specialist, and Nawraj Gurung, an extensionist by training, currently focusing on agricultural and horticultural issues.

2. Nagaland, India: The Nagaland Empowerment of People through Economic Development (NEPED) project. The NEPED SAGA team is formed by Chozhule Kiki, a social scientist with an interest in food and agriculture, and Vengota Nakro, a natural scientist specializing in agriculture and silviculture.

3. Nepal: Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Conservation and Development (LI-BIRD, an NGO). Deepa Singh, a horticulturist, Anil Subedi, a rural extensionist, and Pitamber Shrestha, a rural development specialist, make up the LI-BIRD team.

4. China: The Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Two social scientists represent the CCAP SAGA team: Yiching Song, with a background in rural development studies, and Linxiu Zhang, an agricultural economist.

5. Viet Nam: Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry (HUAF). The HUAF SAGA team is represented by Hoang Thi Sen, who has a background in forestry and agriculture, and Le Van An, an animal scientist. Both have a strong interest in rural development questions.

6. Mongolia: The Ministry of Nature and Environment (MNE) and the Gender Research Centre for Sustainable Development. The Mongolian SAGA team is represented by researchers from a number of organizations. Hijaba Ykhanbai and Enkhbat Bulgan work for the MNE. Tserendorj Odgerel is with the Gender Research Centre for Sustainable Development, and Baatar Naranchimeg is studying at the Mongolian State University.

Projects are often criticized for weakness in SAGA and only very strong or nearly perfect projects that integrate SAGA are appreciated. In this initiative we recognize that learning is an iterative process. Through cross-regional exchanges, the project supports and encourages the steps along the path to learning. The selected cases illustrate real-world examples—in terms of challenges and opportunities, successes and disappointments—and highlight a number of methods used and adapted in the very diverse contexts of Asia.

The studies reflect on not only what has been done and is being done in organizations in terms of capacity development, but also how this has been done or is being done, and what enabling and constraining factors are affecting the process of integrating SAGA. In addition, they ask how best to support these capacity development efforts.

The case study approach is based on six guiding questions; some conceptual and methodological elements (such as an action-oriented approach); and an iterative process of workshops, fieldwork and the production of a number of outputs. The six cases also developed a common theory of action (Patton 1997) outlining how the research process could proceed (Figure 1.1). At the planning stage it helped the team think through the interlinked steps; at the end of the cycle it provided a means to reflect on the actual road followed.

The six cases are examples of pioneering efforts in the particular local context in which they operate; therefore, they are not to be confused with initiatives and results guided or headed by gender experts. Together, they reflect a diversity of strategies, approaches and methods. Some cases illustrate a 'women in development' (WID) approach and its defining features; others fit more within a 'gender and development' (GAD) approach where the focus goes beyond women and women's issues (Connelly et al. 2000: 140–48; Rathgeber 1994). Some cases combine elements of both or are moving from a WID agenda to a GAD approach (Table 1.1 lists the key features of both approaches). No two case studies are alike. We will come back to these approaches and elements in the concluding chapter.

Figure 1.1
Theory of Action

The six guiding questions, agreed on by the teams, are:

1. What does SAGA in natural resource management research mean for different stakeholders?

2. What are the key capacities required for different stakeholders to do SAGA?

3. How are these capacities developed and strengthened (for example, through networking, organizational support)?

4. What are the enabling factors? What are the constraining factors?

5. What have been the achievements of the work so far at different stakeholders' levels?

6. What more can be done to advance SAGA and social and gender equity?

THE 'LEARNING STUDIES' ROADMAP

Finding Common Ground: First Workshop

From 8 to 12 May 2002 participants from the six teams gathered for the first time in Beijing to share previous and ongoing research activities and experiences, to come to a shared understanding of the meaning of SAGA, and to plan concrete action for strengthening their SAGA efforts. Challenges and entry points for integrating SAGA into projects, programmes and organizations were identified. Each team prepared an action plan aimed at strengthening research on a particular SAGA question (in most cases as part of their ongoing research activities). While recognizing that social and gender problems depend on a specific context, common understanding was reached on the nature of the social and gender issues in the various projects. The main features of the six studies are summarized in Table 1.2.

The six studies each developed a particular set of methods and tools to respond to local needs and interests and to address the specific research questions. Together they form a rich and varied methodological basket that merits highlighting (Table 1.3).

In addition, agreements were made to continue sharing knowledge and experience. Steps towards networking were identified, including the use of the Virtual Resource Centre (VRC, a Web-based information and communication tool set up by the CBNRM programme), exchange visits and a second workshop planned for 2003. (A full report can be

found at: http://www.cbnrmasia.org.) With the insights gained at the workshop, participants plunged back into their fieldwork.

Analysing and Comparing Field Experiences: Second Workshop

The second workshop was held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, in October 2003, a few months later than originally scheduled because of the SARS outbreak, which slowed fieldwork and made travelling impossible for several months. Following the format of the Beijing workshop, a participatory approach was adopted with room for individual contributions in both plenary sessions and in small group work. Facilitation was provided by in-house resource people. The workshop was divided into four sessions: presentation of case studies and feedback (based on draft fieldwork reports aided by posters, photo albums and one video [from the Mongolian team]); identification of common issues; writing studies/stories; and planning.

KEY COMMON ISSUES

In reviewing individual case studies and synthesizing the most striking things and the missing or underemphasized elements, nine common issues emerged with respect to integrating SAGA into natural resource management. These elements, which together are providing partial answers to the six guiding questions, are: stakeholder analysis; gender roles: description and explanation; multi-stakeholder collaboration: initiation and fostering; diversified empowerment strategies; disempowerment; scaling up and scaling out; impact assessment (appropriate methods and tools); sustainability (ecological, socioeconomic); and systematic documentation.

In any given context, most, if not all, of these nine issues are interrelated. For example, the initiation of multi-stakeholder collaboration requires a sound stakeholder analysis. Developing an empowerment strategy for poor women requires an understanding of culturally defined gender roles concerning issues such as the division of labour; access to land, water, crops, and animals; access to services such as credit, training and extension; and the organization of women. Four of the nine issues (gender roles; initiation and fostering; diversified empowerment strategies; and impact assessment) were selected by a simple, individual vote as priorities for more in-depth discussion. This was decided based on what the studies had achieved so far, and whether and what kind of additional work would be required to improve quality and rigour.

STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK

The six cases studies follow this introduction and form the heart of this book. The cases have a common pattern. Each starts with a description of the context of the study. This is followed by a brief explanation of the reasons for addressing social and gender questions, research objectives and research questions. The core of the case studies focuses on the findings of the fieldwork carried out to address specific research questions. The sequence of the chapters flows from South Asia to South-East Asia to North-East Asia, as follows:

• Chapter 2: The social and gendered nature of ginger production and commercialization: A case study of the Rai, Lepcha and Brahmin-Chhetri in Sikkim and Kalimpong, West Bengal, India (Chanda Gurung and Nawraj Gurung).

• Chapter 3: Strengthening market linkages for women vegetable vendors: Experiences from Kohima, Nagaland, India (Vengota Nakro and Chozhule Kikhi).

• Chapter 4: Enhancing farmers' marketing capacity and strengthening the local seed system: Action research for the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity in Bara district, Nepal (Deepa Singh, Anil Subedi and Pitamber Shrestha).

• Chapter 5: Empowering women farmers and strengthening the local seed system: Action research in Guangxi, China (Yiching Song and Linxiu Zhang with Ronnie Vernooy).

• Chapter 6: Creating opportunities for change: Strengthening the social capital of women and the poor in upland communities in Hue, Viet Nam (Hoang Thi Sen and Le Van An).

• Chapter 7: Herder women speak out: Towards more equitable co-management of grasslands and other natural resources in Mongolia (H. Ykhanbai, Ts. Odgerel, E. Bulgan and B. Naranchimeg).

The case studies are followed by a comparative analysis of a number of key common issues and challenges identified by the teams. This analysis, grounded in empirical research findings, is presented in two related chapters. Chapter 8 responds to guiding questions 1, 5 and 6 (listed earlier), with a focus on social and gender insights. The chapter compares the main underlying forces or factors that shape particular management practices and some of the emerging issues in terms of equity and environmental sustainability. It reflects on the similarities and differences in how social and gender relations inform natural resource management practices in the study sites. The chapter analyses the cases along a continuum from descriptive to transformative, with reference to the key features of the WID and GAD approaches mentioned in this chapter. Each of the six studies combines elements of this continuum.

Chapter 9 responds to guiding questions 2, 3 and 4, with a focus on the process of integrating SAGA in research and development. It summarizes the main achievements and remaining challenges of the research processes in terms of capacity building. Results are encouraging, but certainly not perfect or final. In most cases research is ongoing and new issues are emerging as well. The chapter concludes with the identification of some major challenges still to be addressed: organizational change and mainstreaming of social and gender research; enduring inequities and the empowerment of women; the improvement of the quality of participation; and dealing with macro forces. The two concluding chapters emphasize that natural resource management questions, whether addressed from a micro or macro perspective, are not social or gender neutral. At the same time, the case studies demonstrate that the processes that shape everyday management practices are never homogeneous by definition. This is a key empirical finding.

NOTE

¹Production and reproduction refer to the activities and strategies used by basic social units (families, households, kinship networks) to make a living and to guarantee the survival of the unit.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29(10): 1623–48.

Connelly, P., T. Murray Li, M. MacDonald and J.L. Parpart (2000). Feminism and Development: Theoretical Perspectives. In J.L. Parpart, M.P. Connelly and V.E. Barriteau, eds, Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development, pp. 51–159. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Cornwall, A. (2000). Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development. IDS discussion paper 378, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.

Farnworth, C.R. and J. Jiggins (2003). Participatory Plant Breeding and Gender Analysis. PPB monograph no. 4, Participatory Research/Gender Analysis Programme, Cali.

Howard, P., ed. (2003). Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation. London: Zed Books.

Kabeer, N. (1997). Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought. London and New York: Verso.

———.(2003). Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millenium Development Goals: A Handbook for Policy-makers and Other Stakeholders. London: Commonwealth Secretariat; Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; Hull: Canadian International Development Agency.

Leach, M., S. Joekes and C. Green (1995). Editorial: Gender Relations and Environmental Change. IDS Bulletin, 26(1): 1–8.

Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Rathgeber, E.M. (1994). WID, WAD, GAD: Tendances de la Recherché et de la Pratique Dans le Champ du Développement (WID, WAD, GAD: Research Trends in Gender and Development). In H. Dagenais and D. Piché, eds, Femmes, Féminisme et Développement (Women, Feminism and Development), pp. 77–97. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Vernooy, R. and L. Fajber (2004). Making Gender and Social Analysis Work for Natural Resource Management Research: An Umbrella Program for Building Researcher Capacity. In Gender Mainstreaming in Action: Successful Innovations from Asia and the Pacific, pp. 208–23. Washington: InterAction's Commission on the Advancement of Women and Silang; Cavite: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction.