• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Acronyms
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Focus and audiences for MERGE
 Gender analysis in MERGE
 Key themes for MERGE
 Merge conceptual framework
 Evaluation
 Reference
 Appendix I: List of participan...
 Appendix II: Workshop agenda






Title: Gender, communities, and natural resource management
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053820/00001
 Material Information
Title: Gender, communities, and natural resource management a conceptualization workshop report
Physical Description: v, 78 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Schmink, Marianne
Stronza, Amanda
Bastidas, Elena P
Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis (Program)
Publisher: Tropical Conservation and Depelopment Program, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville FL
Publication Date: 1996
 Subjects
Subject: Natural resources -- Management -- Congresses -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Women in development -- Congresses -- Latin America   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 72-74).
Statement of Responsibility: Marianne Schmink and Amanda Stronza ; ed. by Elena Bastidas.
General Note: Workshop held Oct. 16-18, 1995 at the University of Florida.
General Note: At head of title: MERGE, Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053820
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 002756541
oclc - 48623419
notis - ANN4486

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Front Matter
        Front Matter
    Acronyms
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Workshop objectives: Summary of pre-conference responses to question 5
            Page 2
        Discussion: Workshop objectives
            Page 3
        Workshop objectives of UF organizing committee
            Page 4
    Focus and audiences for MERGE
        Page 5
        The merge focus: Summary of pre-conference responses to question 1
            Page 5
        The audience for MERGE: Summary of pre-conference responses to question 2
            Page 6
            Page 7
            Page 8
    Gender analysis in MERGE
        Page 9
        Gender analysis in MERGE: Summary of pre-conference responses to question 3
            Page 9
        Discussion: What is gender analysis?
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
        History of gender analysis frameworks: Hilary Feldstein
            Page 15
            History-practice of gender analysis (Hilary Feldstein)
                Page 16
            Main learning from GA frameworks (Hilary Feldstein)
                Page 17
        Towards a comparison of gender and FSRE, gender and NRM: Susan Poats
            Page 18
        Comparison of gender and FSRE, gender and NRM (Susan Poats)
            Page 19
        Discussion: Gender, FSRE and MERGE
            Page 20
        FLACSO and FUNAN training session outline: Susan Poats
            Page 21
        FLASCO and TNC/FUNAN training session outline (Susan Poats)
            Page 22
        Discussion: Landscape-lifescape
            Page 23
        Gender analysis in small farm livelihood systems: Peter Hildebrand
            Page 24
            Case farm for gender analysis using linear programming (Peter Hildebrand)
                Page 25
            Suggested matrix for gender analysis (Peter Hildebrand)
                Page 25
            Comparison of solutions gender analysis basic simulation (Peter Hildebrand)
                Page 26
        Discussion: GA and linear programming
            Page 26
            Page 27
        Discussion: GA and MERGE
            Page 28
    Key themes for MERGE
        Page 29
        Theme 1: People and nature
            Page 29
            People and nature: Karen Kainer
                Page 29
            Components of nature and society (Karen Kainer)
                Page 30
                Page 31
                Page 32
                Page 33
        Theme 2. Ecofeminisms
            Page 34
            Dualisms (Sandra Russo)
                Page 35
                Page 36
                Page 37
            Discussion: Ecofeminisms
                Page 38
        Theme 3. Population, gender, and the environment
            Page 39
            Population, gender and the environment: Some critical perspectives. Marianne Schmink
                Page 39
                Page 40
            Discussion: Population, gender, and the environment
                Page 41
            Population and environment: Paquita Bath
                Page 42
            Discussion: Population and environment
                Page 42
        Theme 4. Institutions and property rights
            Page 43
            Institutions for Natural resource management: Arun Agrawal
                Page 43
            Discussion: Institutions for natural resource management
                Page 44
            Gender and property rights: Hilary Feldstein
                Page 45
            Discussion: Gender and property rights
                Page 45
        Theme 5. Communities
            Page 46
        Lessons from working with communities in Peru: Avecita Chicchon
            Page 46
        Lessons from working with communities in Peru: Richard Bodmer
            Page 47
        4.5.3 Discussion: Working with communities
            Page 48
        Most important lessons learned: Avecita Chicchon
            Page 49
            Page 50
    Merge conceptual framework
        Page 51
        Discussion: Assumptions and hypotheses
            Page 51
        Five initial hypotheses
            Page 52
        Discussion: Five initial hypotheses
            Page 52
            Page 53
        Two additional hypotheses on training
            Page 54
        Discussion: Training hypotheses
            Page 54
        MERGE conceptual framework: Version 1
            Page 55
        Discussion: Draft conceptual framework
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
        Discussion: Gender
            Page 60
        MERGE conceptual framework: Version 2 (October, 1995)
            Page 61
        MERGE conceptual framework: Version 3 (February, 1996)
            Page 62
        MERGE conceptual framework: Version 4 (May, 1996)
            Page 63
    Evaluation
        Page 64
        What was most useful about the workshop?
            Page 64
            Page 65
        Which questions or issues still need further discussion and/or clarification?
            Page 66
            Page 67
        Feedback on the MERGE framework (Version 2)
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
        Additional comments
            Page 71
    Reference
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Appendix I: List of participants
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Appendix II: Workshop agenda
        Page 77
        Page 78
Full Text






MERGE
Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis




Gender, Communities, and
Natural Resource Management:
A Conceptualization
Workshop Report

May, 1996

Marianne Schmink
and
Amanda Stronza
Edited by:
Elena Bastidas



Tropical Conservation and Development Program
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Florida











MERGE
Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis




Gender, Communities, and
Natural Resource Management:
A Conceptualization
Workshop Report





May, 1996



Marianne Schmink and Amanda Stronza


Edited by:
Elena Bastidas




Tropical Conservation and Development Program
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611














TCD Tropical Conservation and Development Program


The TCD Program was established within the Center for Latin American Studies in 1987. Currently
under the direction of Steve Sanderson and Marianne Schmink, the TCD Program functions as an
umbrella program that, in addition, to its own mandate integrates the activities of two affiliated programs
with related interests in conservation and development. The two affiliate programs are Managing
Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis (MERGE) and the Conservation & Development
Forum (CDF). Each of the three programs maintain their own complementary research, educational, and
networking goals.

The TCD Program component fosters interdisciplinary research of and training in the critical issues at
the interface of biological conservation and rural development. It provides integrated training in the
natural and social sciences for students enrolled in the MALAS degree program, as well as those in other
graduate departments. It accomplishes its objectives through a wide variety of activities including
student fellowships, small research grants, curriculum development, post-doctoral and visiting scholar
support, faculty enhancement, and program development at universities in Latin America. TCD links
teaching and research in more than 14 departments and other academic units at the University of Florida.



MERGE Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Emphasis

The MERGE Program seeks to strengthen the understanding of gender issues in natural resource
management in tropical areas, and to encourage the practical application of that improved
understanding. MERGE serves as a convener and facilitator of exchanges among partner
organizations of different kinds and currently works in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. Participating with
the UF MERGE partnership are The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation International (CI)
and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
(FLACSO), as well as grass-roots and other local organizations working in selected project sites.
The comprehensive strategy adopted by MERGE includes: 1) a substantive focus that combines
attention to gender, participatory approaches with local communities, and resource management to
address both conservation and development goals; 2) a strategy that includes development and
testing of research and training materials, training, training-of-trainers, and networking; and 3)
working through coalitions of partner organizations involved in research, policy, training, and
project applications in specific sites.









ACRONYMS


CGIAR

CIDA

DPU

FADEMAD

FAO

FLACSO

FSRE

FSSP

FUNAN

FVA

GA

IFPRI

MERGE

NARS

NGO

NRM

NTFP

PRA

PRODESCOT

PROGEMA


Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

Canadian International Development Agency

Development Planing Unit

Federaci6n Agraria de Madre de Dios

Food and Agriculture Organization

Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales

Farming System Research and Extension

Farming System Support Project

Fundaci6n Antisana

Fundagao Vitoria Amaz6nica

Gender Analysis

International Food Policy Research Institute

Managing Ecosystems and Resources with Gender Enphasis

National Agricultural Research Systems

Non-Government Organizations

Natural Resource Management

Non-Timber Forest Products

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Program para el Desarrollo y la Conservaci6n en Tambopata

Program G6nero y Medio Ambiente

i








TNC The Nature Conservancy

UNPFA United Nations Population Fund

UNCHR United Nations Commission on Human Rights

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WID Women in Development










Table of Contents




1 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1

1.1 Workshop Objectives: Summary of pre-conference
responses to Question 5...................................... 2
1.2 Discussion: Workshop Objectives. ............................. 3
1.3 Workshop Objectives of UF Organizing Committee ................ 4


2 FOCUS AND AUDIENCES FORMERGE ......................... 5

2.1 The MERGE Focus: Summary of pre-conference
responses to Question 1 ...................................... 5
2.2 The audience for MERGE: Summary of pre-
conference responses to Question 2. ............................ 6

3 GENDER ANALYSIS IN MERGE .................................. 9

3.1 Gender Analysis in MERGE: Summary of pre-
conference responses to Question 3. ............................ 9
3.2 Discussion: What is Gender Analysis? .......................... 10
3.3 History of Gender Analysis Frameworks:
Hilary Feldstein. .......................................... 15
3.3.1 History-Practice of Gender Analysis
(Hilary Feldstein). .................................. 16
3.3.2 Main learning from GA frameworks
(Hilary Feldstein). .................................. 17
3.4 Towards a Comparison of Gender and FSRE,
Gender and NRM: Susan Poats. ............... ............. 18
3.5 Comparison of Gender and FSRE, Gender
and NRM (Susan Poats). ................................... 19
3.6 Discussion: Gender, FSRE and MERGE. ....................... 20
3.7 FLACSO and FUNAN Training Session:
Susan Poats. ............................................ 21
3.8 FLACSO and TNC/FUNAN training
session outline (Susan Poats)................ ............... 22
3.9 Discussion: Landscape-Lifescape. ............................. 23









3.10 Gender Analysis in Small Farm Livelihood Systems:
Peter Hildebrand .......................................... 24
3.10.1 Case farm for gender analysis using linear
programming (Peter Hildebrand) ....................... 25
3.10.2 Suggested matrix for gender analysis
(Peter Hildebrand). ................................. 25
3.10.3 Comparison of Solutions Gender Analysis
Basic Simulation (Peter Hildebrand). .................... 26
3.11 Discussion: GA and Linear Programming. ...................... 26
3.12 Discussion: GA and MERGE................................. 28


4 KEY THEMES FOR MERGE ..................................... 29

4.1 Theme 1. People and Nature. ............................... 29
4.1.1 People and Nature: Karen Kainer. ................ ..... 29
4.1.2 Components of Nature and Society
(Karen Kainer). .................................... 30
4.2 Theme 2. Ecofeminisms. ................................... 34
4.2.2 Dualisms (Sandra Russo) ............................ 35
4.2.3 Discussion: Ecofeminisms. ............................ 38
4.3 Theme 3. Population, Gender, and the Environment .............. 39
4.3.1 Population, Gender and the Environment:
Some Critical Perspectives. Marianne Schmink ............. 39
4.3.2 Discussion: Population, Gender, and the
Environment. ...................................... 41
4.3.3 Population and Environment: Paquita Bath. ............... 42
4.3.4 Discussion: Population and Environment ................. 42
4.4 Theme 4. Institutions and Property Rights. ................ ... 43
4.4.1 Institutions for Natural Resource Management:
ArunAgrawal .................................... 43
4.4.2 Discussion: Institutions for Natural Resource
Management. ...................................... 44
4.4.3 Gender and Property Rights: Hilary Feldstein. ............. 45
4.4.4 Discussion: Gender and Property Rights................... 45
4.5 Theme 5. Communities ..................................... 46
4.5.1 Lessons from Working with Communities
in Peru: Avecita Chicch6n. ............................ 46
4.5.2 Lessons from Working with Communities
in Peru: RichardBodmer............................ 47
4.5.3 Discussion: Working with Communities .................. 48
4.5.4 Most Important Lessons Learned: Avecita Chicch6n. ........ 49









5 MERGE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..........................


5.1 Discussion: Assumptions and Hypotheses. ..
5.2 Five Initial Hypotheses. ................
5.3 Discussion: Five Initial Hypotheses. .......
5.4 Two Additional Hypotheses on Training. ...
5.5 Discussion: Training Hypotheses. ........
5.6 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 1.
5.7 Discussion: Draft Conceptual Framework
(Version 1). .........................
5.8 Discussion: Gender. ....................


5.9 MERGE Conceptual Framework:
Version 2 (October, 1995).........................
5.10 MERGE Conceptual Framework:
Version 3 (February, 1996). .......................
5.11 MERGE Conceptual Framework:
Version 4 (May, 1996). ..........................

6 EVALUATION ......................................

6.1 What was most useful about the workshop? ...........
6.2 Which questions or issues still need further
discussion and/or clarification? .....................
6.3 Feedback on the MERGE Framework
(Version 2) ..................................
6.4 Additional Comments: ...........................

7 REFERENCES ......................................

APPENDIX I: List of participants ..............................

APPENDIX II: Workshop Agenda ............................


.......... 64

.......... 66

.......... 68
.......... 7 1

.......... 72

.......... 75

.......... 77


.

.

.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


INTRODUCTION


From October 16 to 18, the MERGE
program sponsored a "Conceptualization
Workshop" to permit discussion of key
MERGE themes (gender; community
participation; natural resource
management) and closely related issues,
such as population and institutions.
Partners involved in the MERGE program
worked together to refine the conceptual
basis for the program and related work in
research, training and project
implementation. Financial support was
provided by the MacArthur Foundation
and the Ford Foundation. The participants
list (see appendix I) included
representatives of MERGE partner
organizations in Ecuador, Brazil, Peru and
the U.S.


Prior to the workshop, participants were
asked to respond to five key questions,
listed below, which served to launch
discussion during the conference sessions.
The responses to these questions were
wide-ranging and thoughtful. They
demonstrated the rich source of collective
thinking on which the workshop was able
to draw. Summaries of these responses
were used to provide a point of departure
and to give an idea of the range of issues
and concerns of participants. This report
begins with a summary of the pre-
conference responses to the question
concerning what participants hoped to
gain. This is followed by summaries of
responses to questions regarding the focus
and the audiences of MERGE.









MERGE


FIVE PRE-CONFERENCE QUESTIONS

1) What is the question MERGE is trying to answer? Please state your perspective on the
specific issues) that our joint programs are trying to address.

2) What are the specific audiences) for MERGE training and research? Please be as
specific as possible in identifying the characteristics of the groups we are trying to
reach: their level of training, world views, concerns, incentives, etc.

<3) What do we mean by gender analysis within MERGE? How do we define gender?
What level of analysis are we seeking?

4) What is a "community" for MERGE?

5) What are you hoping to gain from the workshop? What specific products or follow up
activities would you like to see come out of our discussions?




1.1 Workshop Objectives: Summary of pre-conference responses to Question 5.



What are you hoping to gain from the workshop? What specific products or follow-up
activities would you like to see come out of our discussions?

RESPONSES
Hope to gain:

Better understanding of gender and NRM with local communities
Explore "conservation" as applied to MERGE
Clarify thinking for future research, teaching, and project management
Better define audiences, characteristics and needs

Test approaches for organizing gender analysis
Further analysis of lessons to date from different cases

table continues..








Conceptualization Workshop Report

Learn more about project problems or dilemmas, how research can be useful for planning
New ideas for training
Input for TNC population discussion and ways to define gender overlap

What I do not want to do is get too lost in other "interesting" subjects that do indeed apply to
conservation and/or development, but are not at the core of MERGE goals.

Products:

Set of minutes/summary
Document on workshop with recommendations and "starter outline" for future activities

Common framework of analysis and action for MERGE
Working hypotheses for MERGE to guide case studies and other activities
Define what makes MERGE unique and what framework and outputs should follow
Assess MERGE direction and progress
Clear graphic representation of the relationship between MERGE partners

Follow up discussions at meeting in Quito in March
Commitment (or not) to TNC primer on gender
Future collaborative activities (including after December 1996)
Commissioned papers
Documents on new uses for methodologies
Document of lessons learned on institutional interactions (more analytical)
Define training documents; collection of training materials and ways to circulate
Pamphlet/article like SEEDS (more descriptive and reflective)
Define strategic research program for comparative studies in different sites


1.2 Discussion: Workshop objectives.

Avecita Chicch6n pointed out that in
addition to exploring "conservation as
applied to MERGE" the workshop also
should explore "MERGE as applied to
conservation." Richard Bodmer and
Karen Kainer pointed out the need to
define "conservation," which appeared in
quotes in the responses. Hilary Feldstein
suggested that a running list be kept of
pending items, such as this definition.


Susan Poats and Marianne Schmink
commented on the overly ambitious
agenda for the workshop. Some things,
such as testing approaches, or producing a
graphic representation of MERGE, would
not be possible. Likely products included
a report, a conceptual framework, and
plans for future activities.
Based on the discussion of participants'
pre-conference responses, the objectives
for the conference were determine as
follows.









MERGE


1.3 Workshop Objectives of UF Organizing Committee.


Goal: To expand and incorporate current thinking on issues and themes related to MERGE

Objectives:

1) To explore MERGE's current conceptual base

2) To expand the conceptual base contributing to MERGE by being exposed to recent
thinking, writing and discussions in thematic areas

3) To explore the future of MERGE and possible post-MERGE activities








Conceptualization Workshop Report


FOCUS AND AUDIENCES

FOR MERGE


2.1 The MERGE Focus: Summary of pre-conference responses to Question 1.


What is the question MERGE is trying to answer? Please state your perspective on the
specific issues) that our joint programs are trying to address.

RESPONSES

How/why is gender important in conservation/natural resource management?
How are women's interests distinct from those of other social actors?

How can attention to gender and other social differences improve the theoretical and
methodological approach to development and environment?
How can we increase linkages between micro/macro levels, social and non-social issues, theory and
practice?

What are the best approaches to linking gender with NRM in different contexts?
How can attention to gender and other social differences improve the success of NRM projects?
How can gender methods and tools be adapted to NRM/conservation?
How can partnerships be formed between communities and conservation organizations to allow for
negotiation of goals and interests?

table continues..








Conceptualization Workshop Report


FOCUS AND AUDIENCES

FOR MERGE


2.1 The MERGE Focus: Summary of pre-conference responses to Question 1.


What is the question MERGE is trying to answer? Please state your perspective on the
specific issues) that our joint programs are trying to address.

RESPONSES

How/why is gender important in conservation/natural resource management?
How are women's interests distinct from those of other social actors?

How can attention to gender and other social differences improve the theoretical and
methodological approach to development and environment?
How can we increase linkages between micro/macro levels, social and non-social issues, theory and
practice?

What are the best approaches to linking gender with NRM in different contexts?
How can attention to gender and other social differences improve the success of NRM projects?
How can gender methods and tools be adapted to NRM/conservation?
How can partnerships be formed between communities and conservation organizations to allow for
negotiation of goals and interests?

table continues..









MERGE


How can we best teach the concept and application of the concept of gender (community,
local participation) to field professionals?
How can we monitor the impact of training in field projects?
How do we follow up training with focused assistance to re-shape on-going activities?
How do we help institutions to ensure the continuity of the gender focus?
How to involve all stakeholders in decision-making?
How can women play a more vocal and powerful role in policies and projects?

What are the insights and lessons learned (about gender and NRM) from different contexts?
How can we generate a "worldwide learning loop"?
How can we promote dialogue among different "voices"?



2.2 The audience for MERGE: Summary of pre-conference responses to
Question 2.



What are the specific audiences) for MERGE training and research? Please be as
specific as possible in identifying the characteristics of the groups we are trying to reach:
their level of training, world views, concerns, incentives, etc.

RESPONSES

ADMINISTRATION FOCUS
(Aid/donor agencies personnel, mid-career policy makers and planners in the government,
NGO professionals, conservation/NRM program directors and administrators)

Have some background in analysis and/or research
Want to apply background to program and project planning in order to guide change
Normally have masters or Ph.D. degrees
More familiar with needs of communities and field personnel than academic thinkers
Concerned with getting efficient impact but also effective impact from their projects
Gender to most means women's projects (quality of life and rights for women)
Involved in the design and implementation of projects
Specific project focus with limited life span

table continues..








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Time constrained
Face change moments reflecting who are the boards of directors ofNGOs.
Conservation focus in LA is carried by the social elite/biological in the North
Biologists come from a perspective of deductive reasoning

FIELD/ TECHNICAL FOCUS
(project personnel, field professional including extensionists, researchers, community
development people, mid-level technical and field people)

Generally have at most a bachelors degree
Little background in information collection and analysis and critical thinking
Enjoy being with people
Limited training in planning/communication tools
Much better gut understanding of realities and constraints faced by rural peoples
Shuttle information back and fort between administrators and local peoples.
Often dependent on their organizations for guidance
Most do not know what gender is (often interpret it as feminism or women's projects)
Concerned with environment and social justice
Willing to exchange ideas and experiences
Not always clear about what they need to learn
In general, have difficulty writing reports
Usually overextended
May recognize the need to address people's needs and seeking practical tools to move forward
Need a conceptual basis to allow them to adapt and create new tools to address the underlying
issues
Varied disciplines
This is a broad category and none of comments apply to all those included
Tend to be young and enthusiastic
Strongly influenced by funders; the orientation of work depends on the funders
Prioritization is affected by whether a biological or social approach is taken

ACADEMIC FOCUS
(academic thinkers, students, faculty, US and abroad)

Want to better understand and predict trends and actions
Want to understand what makes people(or systems) do what they do and why

table continues..

















Use knowledge to predict, prevent or guide change
Have background/experience in thinking about and discussion complex issues from Know how
to collect and document information
Familiar with theories and real world examples
Gender is interesting to them in conceptual terms understanding a social construct/variable that
helps understand the world.
Seeking applied, interdisciplinary training
Have scientific world views often further restricted by disciplinary training
International perspectives on environmental issues
Would be useful to distinguish between North and South when looking at this focus
Most of the people in academics are in the process of transition from production to conservation
Have strong research constraints by discipline and university for interdisciplinary approaches.
Need to identify biological (natural) scientists and social scientist complementarily
Field experience is often limited to what they did for doctorate degree

COMMUNITY/LIVELIHOOD FOCUS LOCAL LEVEL
(local community members, rural women and leaders...)

Survival focused
Enforce roles that have been passed down and developed over a long period of time
Extremely busy, little time to experiment, little time to spend in workshops
Need ways to involve different groups in the tasks of assessing needs, defining priorities,
collecting information, designing and implementing activities, and monitoring their progress
Need extension applications and consciousness-raising strategies
Some very young people
Voluntary conservation work --work on farms during the days (conservation on weekends and
evenings)
Various levels of literacy
Need for location specific training (difficulty extrapolating from distant examples)
Knowledge of local environment
Long term livelihood concerns often conflict with short term concerns (conflicts)
Focus on socioeconomic (livelihood issues)


~~a ~VY








Conceptualization Workshop Report


3




GENDER ANALYSIS

IN MERGE



3.1 Gender Analysis in MERGE: Summary of pre-conference responses to
Question 3.


What do we mean by gender analysis within MERGE? How do we define gender? What
level of analysis are we seeking?

RESPONSES
Gender:

At minimum, roles, activities and resources ( "gender neutral") with respect to NRM
Social relationships between men and women (leads to more advocacy)

Structural relationship to sources of power
Power relations, often including conflicts and differences with respect to the division of labor,
access to property and other resources, perspectives on nature, forms of organization, uses of
income and natural resources, livelihood goals

A variable interrelated with class, ethnicity, age
Both a variable and a field of knowledge

Subjective assessment of self

table continues..








Conceptualization Workshop Report


3




GENDER ANALYSIS

IN MERGE



3.1 Gender Analysis in MERGE: Summary of pre-conference responses to
Question 3.


What do we mean by gender analysis within MERGE? How do we define gender? What
level of analysis are we seeking?

RESPONSES
Gender:

At minimum, roles, activities and resources ( "gender neutral") with respect to NRM
Social relationships between men and women (leads to more advocacy)

Structural relationship to sources of power
Power relations, often including conflicts and differences with respect to the division of labor,
access to property and other resources, perspectives on nature, forms of organization, uses of
income and natural resources, livelihood goals

A variable interrelated with class, ethnicity, age
Both a variable and a field of knowledge

Subjective assessment of self

table continues..








MERGE

Gender analysis:

Role, responsibilities, and power that gendered actors possess in NRM
Who does what? Who uses what resources for what, why, how? Who benefits and who loses?
Men's and women's social roles taking into account age, ethnicity, social class
Interactions of socially defined roles of men and women in NRM
Dynamic power relations as they affect community-level NRM
Collecting, organizing and analyzing zing information on the roles of men and women and the
relationships between them as they relate to conservation and NRM

Tool in participants' self awareness of community and livelihood

Increases visibility, recognition of women for others) as stakeholders
Does gender analysis clash with community norms in seeing women as potentially separate
interest group?
Appropriate fit within the larger context of social analysis applied to NRM?

Levels of analysis:

Appropriate to the situation: for academics, more complex; for field professionals, may be
limited to observing "w ho does what" and thinking about how to include as many people as
possible in the project; start modest and build up where necessary

In relation to the natural system and livelihoods; household and community, at micro, and macro
levels (policy) and articulation between them

Need to increase attention to community level; to ownership" / use of uncultivated or common
spaces: to access to and control over resources; to landscape or watershed vs. field level; to
wildlife vs. agriculture examples


3.2 Discussion: What is Gender Analysis?

Jon Dain: We would like to continue to
explore the conceptual basis for gender
analysis within MERGE. What do we
mean by gender emphasis? After 20 years
of talking about gender, people still ignore
it. Why talk about gender when we mean
women? We propose to discuss: What is
gender? What is gender analysis? How
are these two definitions affected by our
audience, by the MERGE focus?


Let's begin with the proposition that
gender is a concept; gender analysis (GA)
is a tool to understand better the concept.
Peter Hildebrand: GA is also a way to
incorporate a better understanding of
gender into projects.
Marianne Schmink: I think of gender as a
set of power relations vs. gender as a set
of roles. They are very different
definitions, but perhaps both are








Conceptualization Workshop Report


appropriate for different audiences. The
complexity of dealing with power in
gender relations may be beyond the
interests of a practical field audience.
When we say, "who does what," we are
referring to gender as roles. Outside this
room, feminist scholars understand gender
to mean relationships between women and
men in different social contexts, and how
those relations are imbued with different
levels of power. Gender can mean
subordination rather than division of labor.
Lisette Staal: It bothers me that we throw
out the term gender analysis and assume
that it's inclusive. What is GA? It is the
collection and organization of information
on gender, but it isn't necessarily
incorporating it. We assume that if we do
GA, it gets incorporated, but I ask, why do
we do GA, and why is it useful? How do
we use the results? Who needs to know
what gender is, and how will they use the
results of GA, and how do we assist them
to use them?
Peter Hildebrand: Gender diagnosis is the
term in farming systems, and then GA is
the incorporating aspect.
Lisette Staal: In the training workshop in
Quito, one session title was "the collection
of data" but for what purpose? We have
to know how to collect the data, but that
does not assume we know how to
incorporate it into our project.
Karen Kainer: Back to the training, how
far do you go into analysis, and how much
does a particular audience need heavy and
light analysis, because they're interested in
application and not analysis. The struggle
is how to go from analysis to application.
We do have to go through a process, but
it's a struggle figuring out who does what.


It's the relations between men and women,
but also their relations to resources.
Hilary Feldstein: How could we do it
without analysis?
Karen Kainer: Maybe it's a split second
when we see "she's doing that and he's
doing that." And that split second is
analysis, but we don't consider it as such.
Susan Poats: What does the term research
mean and what does analysis mean?
Everyone does research. We need to
demystify research; analysis doesn't have
to be numbers. Interpretation is where
you get to the action part. There's a lack
of interpretation skills at the level of
experience people have had. The GA has
to be deconstructed, and then the parts can
be replaced. One part is collecting data,
then comes organizing to make it visible,
then being able to interpret it. We don't
say enough about what we mean by GA.
We take for granted that the information is
there to be analyzed. What are the biases
of the people who collect the information?
Hilary Feldstein: The GA framework
gave them a set of questions, which if they
took too literally would defeat the
purpose.
Jon Dain: What does incorporating
gender imply?
Suely Anderson: To give a concrete
example, we look at monitoring and
evaluation plans, and how to collect data
that provide information on how the
project is advancing.
Arun Agrawal: Nobody does anything
without some analysis. The relative mix or
emphasis would be very dependent on
what you're trying to achieve.
Peter Polshek. In conservation initiatives,
in a protected area, when decisions are
made at the community level, you get back










to ensuring that all stakeholders are being
considered. Gender analysis is important
to do that.
Peter Hildebrand: Are we talking about
the capability to predict what the outcomes
of projects might be?
Lisette Staal: In order to answer how do
we incorporate gender, we need to look at
different audiences because they will be
thinking about different things. When we
are at the community level, what does
incorporating gender mean to the
community, to the professionals, and at the
administrative level?
Karen Kainer: How to talk about gender
in the community...
RichardBodmer: The objective is how to
consider gender. If the ideal is for the
community to incorporate gender, then
how do we get at that, and how do we
improve people's analytical skills?
Anne Todd-Bockarie: We need to be able
to give examples to the group with whom
we're working, to show that they have
already done their own analyses.

Jorge Recharte: The idea of understanding
may not be the result of logical analysis,
but simple observation, and that has
consequences for how projects are
planned. Someone said that people
working in the projects have problems
systematizing reports. I remember
responses such as: "The problem I have is
that women don't come to meetings; I
don't care about theory." People faced
with lots of decisions lack interest in
analysis and data. It's critical to think
about what we mean by the term analysis,
and what are the consequences for the
people who use GA?


Marianne Schmink: We should return to
the question of what use we want to make
of analysis. Bring back the issue of
advocacy. The problem may not be who
does what, but who has power to act at
different moments. It may be more
important to focus on empowerment than
good analytical data. If we start from
advocacy as one of the goals, rather than
simply improving project design (or as a
way to improve project design), it
broadens the approach. At FADEMAD
(in Tambopata, Peru), rather than talking
about gender, the women were more
interested in finding out how to get women
more involved.
Paquita Bath: The most important thing
at the March meeting (TNC Conservation
Week, 1995) in Quito was criticism of
PRA. Our partners are now doing good
PRA work, but not good analysis. We
give the tools, but not the training on how
to analyze.
Karen Kainer: The analysis/advocacy
issue: The light goes off in participants'
heads when we start to talk about analysis.
The problem with advocacy is that the
barriers go up, especially among men. But
participants perceive analysis, they get
interested and become their own
advocates. We added in the Peru training
a critical thinking exercise, which included
how to do analysis and how to think
critically.
Marianne Schmink: You are hypothesizing
that analysis will lead to advocacy?
Karen Kainer: Otherwise we are
imposing, and people resist.

Susan Poats: We open pandora's box in
this, and we're running dangerously into
method with no interpretations. I question


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


whether we, in fact, need anthropologists.
If you want a task replicated in the field,
lots of people can do it. But if you want
to innovate, you can't assume that one
person can do it. You can't train
agronomists to become social scientists;
they can learn to talk to farmers better, but
not necessarily how to innovate. There is
a disciplinary heart to social science in
conservation as well. We are dealing in
areas that need skilled disciplinarians.
Marianne Schmink: It's especially
dangerous in social sciences--everyone is
a social human being, and it is not apparent
that social science research does require
training.
Peter Hildebrand: We should consider the
characterization of the environment, within
which the conservation method will be
adopted or rejected. In farming systems,
we talk about how to incorporate
characterization into analysis.
Marianne Schmink: The problem with
that is that it's more than a farm we are
dealing with in conservation, and it is more
difficult to characterize a community than
a farm.
Arun Agrawal: The unit of analysis can be
far more vague.
Lisette Staal: The "International Training
Package on Gender Analysis and Forestry
in Asia" (FAO Community Forest Unit
1994), is interesting because it's grappling
with this issue. In the GA framework,
they couldn't start with the activities
analysis; they needed to start with a social
characterization. They recognized that as
an important part of going through the
steps of a social profile.
Marianne Schmink: We could start with
stakeholders and resources.
Conservationists seem to have no problem


dealing with different groups in a resource
base. I don't know what the social profile
looked like, but I also have this notion that
conservationists are likely to think more
about the distribution of space and
resources than they are about the calendar.
There are different interests spread out
across resources at different scales.
Peter Polshek- In the tropics, seasonality is
very important.
Marianne Schmink: But conservationists
are not that interested in the agricultural
calendar.
Karen Kainer: Time and space are
important. The whole concept of
landscape ecology has made more people
realize that.

Peter Polshek: Biologists also consider
gender--er, sex, I guess--when talking
about flora and fauna. It should be easy
for biologists to incorporate the
framework.
Anne Todd-Bockarie: In animal behavior,
it's recent that they have focused on both
sexes, but yes, the concept is there.
Jorge Recharte: What is the relationship
between research and extension in the case
of biology? In my own experience,
research and extension are compatible. I
want to understand better the connection
between research in biology and
conservation.
Paquita Bath: On the biological side,
there is a huge amount of research. But on
the social side, there's less, and there is a
history of conflict and telling people what
they can't do.
Avecita Chicch6n: Jorge's question is very
relevant in the case of Peru. We have
biologists who do field studies and collect
a lot of biological data, but there is a










divorce between what they get and what
the NGO community is doing.
Researchers in the museum often look
down on what the conservationists are
doing. There are exceptions, but they look
down on people who are doing just
conservation without biological research.
There is a dichotomy; a lot of people also
see applied research as not so scientific as
their own research. In particular in Peru,
we have to do a lot of work in
incorporating local research into
conservation.
Jon Dain: This sounds like what I heard
in Peter Hildebrand's class years ago.
Defining the research agenda.. which was
being driven by the research community
and the NGOs' needs.
Marianne Schmink: Some UF departments
do not count publications that appear in
conservation journals as relevant for tenure
and promotion.
Anne Todd-Bockarie: In forestry, rangers
were trained to police, not to work
interactively with people. Local people
were an aberration they had to deal with,
historically speaking. There is a big
difference between forestry and
agricultural research and extension.
Agroforestry has such a hard time because
it is forced to work between two different
ministries: agriculture and natural
resources.

Marianne Schmink: Advocacy and
analysis. What Karen Kainer said is
sticking with me. If we want to deal with
advocacy as a goal, then we need to be
able to give communities tools to do
analysis. Then they are part of the
audience of how to incorporate gender.
Jon Dain: Some analysis is necessary to


get to advocacy. We also said there is
danger in analysis without interpretation.
How do we reconcile the fact that we need
professionals to do analysis and interpret,
but on the other hand, we want
communities to do it?
Avecita Chicch6n: We need to do analysis
as much as we can. There aren't a lot of
professionals or NGOs doing these
projects anyway. It is a myth to think that,
if a community wants to participate, they
are right about it. If you do a workshop,
they know what the problems are, but they
may not know the best solutions to their
problems. "Our solution," for example, "is
a front-loader." So as conservationists, we
have to accompany the community in
making the decisions. The problems may
be well diagnosed, but maybe not the
solutions. I think it is a team effort, we
cannot leave the community by itself to
make its own solutions, and they may not
be right. Our role is becoming more and
more as facilitator.
Richard Bodmer: Can we expect
communities to analyze this type of
information? It's a methods problem. In
Peru, if we use the right methods
appropriate to what the hunters do, they
can easily get to the process of evaluating.
If they collect skulls and analyze the skulls,
that's what they do; if you ask them to cut
transects, then no.
Jorge Recharte: If we want communities
to participate in analysis, examples are
useful.
Marianne Schmink: It would seem that
the strategic focus audience would be
people who work with communities, and
training them in facilitation skills to find
appropriate ways for given communities to
deal with problems.


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Connie Campbell: By working with key
leaders and facilitating their GA, it avoids
the imposition of gender as something
that's politically correct or what a donor
may require. NGOs are frustrated at
gender coming down from the top, (i.e, a
certain percentage of women must be
involved). It makes them resistant to
thinking about gender; it becomes a North
American power imposition, and they give
lip service to it. But reality doesn't change
much.
Hilary Feldstein: In our project with the
CGIAR centers, we are responding to
initiatives. When we wrote the strategy


paper, the centers rejected the mandatory
dictation. We changed our tone from that
of donors and began instead to support
initiatives that were in place and to
publicize examples. We have a much more
diffuse audience, but going
opportunistically with promising locations
seems to be a way to overcome the
problem of top-down imposition.
Jon Dain: The need for skills seems to be
the key theme. How do we expect people
with whom we're working to incorporate
gender and gender analysis into their
projects?


#* *


3.3 History of Gender Analysis Frameworks: Hilary Feldstein.


The model developed by Susan and me
(Feldstein and Poats 1990) was based on
the Harvard model, which was project-
oriented (Rao, Anderson and Overholt
1991). Looking at efficiency models, we
incorporated farming systems concepts
into this.

In 1981-82, USAID began working with
WID, and in 1979 the World Bank began
their efforts (the World Bank has a
publication that summarizes the history).
The original funding source was CIDA
(Canadian International Development
Agency). CIDA intended to train all of
their staff and was one of the first agencies
to do so. The premise of this framework
was that women would receive more
attention, not as separate "women in
development" work, but by paying
attention to them in mainstream projects.
The framework was focused on "who does


what," capturing the distribution of
activities, and access and control of
resources and benefits. It was intended as
a less confrontational mode of recognizing
women's roles in development and then
building on that knowledge. It did not
challenge power relations. It relied on
rationality.

In 1984, Susan and I began working on
adapting the framework to farming
systems research, i.e. to technology
development, but the book stopped with
where we and gender analysis and farming
systems were at that point in time. Since
then, gender analysis has developed
considerably.

By 1989, we had learned about other
frameworks, such as Caroline Moser's
from Europe (Moser 1989), which built on
the concept of interests (practical vs.












strategic gender needs and interests
originated in Molyneux 1991). Moser also
paid attention to community roles of men
and women, something that we hadn't
looked at before. More important, Moser
dealt much more directly with gender
relations, i.e. the relations between men


and women, that is looking at the equity
in such relationships, the position of
women, their bargaining power. This led
to more concern with empowerment and
power relation issues.


3.3.1 History-Practice of Gender Analysis (Hilary Feldstein).


History


Other Frameworks


World Bank
I

USAID/Harvard
(UNPFA, CIDA, UNCHR)
I


FSRE/FSSP

FSRE Practice
FSRE Practice


Practice

Framework- Case Studies began with analysis
developed by iteration with case studies
I

Contributed importance of sectoral and
organizational specificity
I

Predictions, ex- ante analysis
I

Must be followed by appropriate technical
assistance


Moser, DPU, and Molyneux
strategic and practical
community level roles
gender relations


Gender Analysis Matrix
GA self done by community


Kabeer, Stuart, Illo
Attention to
organizational arrangements


Other Practices

More attention to organize arrangements


More attention to effect


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Another model is Rani Parker's framework
(Parker 1993) who took a generic gender
analysis and set it up for community
decision-making to look at differing
impacts on different gender groups as a
project was planned and implemented.
Others took on an organizational focus:
Naila Kabeer (1994); Rieky Stewart
(1994); Jeanne Illo (1994)--their work
helps people to see the organizational
constraints that keeps people from
enacting gender-sensitive decisions.

Training practices have evolved with our
framework: We've moved from (1)
looking at case studies analyses to (2)
sectoral and organizational specificity,
bringing in from outside what is


appropriate to the questions that your
audience is asking --shaping the discussion
of gender analysis, the information to be
sought and decisions that could be made to
the specific sector and organizational
imperatives. And now we are (3) seeing
that training must be followed by
appropriate technical assistance. We can't
do just gender analysis training.

The other area people are thinking about is
having to get at hearts as well as minds,
and the question of affect. The people
who are using this are finding you can get
resistors to identify and become closer to
seeing gender in personal terms. This is
worth exploring further.


3.3.2 Main learning from GA frameworks (Hilary Feldstein).


Approach to Gender and Gender
Analysis:

Methodology (with gender as a variable)
1

Understanding gender relations
1

Advocacy

Importance of:


Context
Organization Arrangements


Gender Analysis as a Doorknob:

Shift to more anthropological approach,
economic assessment

Role of Trainer:

Shift from awareness-raising to
facilitating

Trainers as Facilitators = Resources for
future negotiations

Case Studies:

To practice using method/ framework
As examples of good practice to be used
didactically








MERGE


The main learning:


1. The approach to gender and GA
ranges from a) methodology with gender
as a variable to b) understanding gender
relations using gender as a "doorknob" to
c) advocacy.
2. The importance of context and
organizational arrangements.
3. Gender analysis as a "doorknob";
seeing gender analysis through a shift to a
more anthropological approach, which


sheds light on social variables beyond but
including economic assessments.
4. The role of trainers-there has been
a shift from awareness raising to being
facilitator. Trainers work as facilitators, a
resource for future negotiations.
5. Case studies are useful a) to
practice using methods and frameworks
and b) as examples of good practices to be
used didactically.


3.4 Towards a Comparison of Gender and FSRE, Gender and NRM: Susan Poats.


For the FSRE (Farming Systems Research
and Extension) framework, we borrowed
from a very specific method (the FSRE
framework) and moved it into a new
context.:

1. The theoretical and/or
methodological underpinnings: what I see
us doing in MERGE is similar in that we
are taking experiences from three different
areas: (1) FSRE, (2) community forestry
(3) PRA

2. The issue of focus took the
inclusion of gender as a new variable in
explicit research and technology
development methodology. What MERGE


is doing is taking gender as part of the
landscape. Are we talking about one
framework or many frameworks? Is it
really the same set of questions that we're
talking about? We know that the
questions may be the same for agriculture
but are they the same for natural resource
management/ conservation? For example,
we're dealing with very different
landscapes.

3. Location: in FSRE the unit of
analysis was the field and/or the farm or
the farming family. With MERGE we're
looking at a community of people in a
specific ecosystem.









Conceptualization Workshop Report

3.5 Comparison of Gender and FSRE, Gender and NRM (Susan Poats).


ISSUES GENDER AND FSRE GENDER AND
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT


1. Theoretical
and/or
methodological
underpinnings

2. Focus








3. Location, "Unit of
Analysis"

4. Clientele for
training



5. Existing social
science
involvement


6. Starting point and
development
steps.


Borrowed directly from Harvard
Gender roles and then adapted



Inclusion of gender as new
variable in explicit research and
technology development
methodology. Diagnosis,
Design/planning,
Experimentation, Evaluation,
Diffusion


Field/"finca"; Farmer/farm family


NARS, University, Research
dominance



FSRE "minimal pair" --
agronomist, agricultural
economist. Conflicts: economics
vs. non-economic social sciences

1984 Conceptual framework
draft. 1986 Conference--
Analysis of case studies--training,
case study method--modify
training methods. Chronological
note: few/no gender trainers, less
confidence in handling gender in
training. Technology/product
focused.


Constructing on
bases/experiences from
FSRE, people and forestry,
PRA (and all its variations)

Inclusion of gender in the
landscape: Protected,
Extractive, Buffers,
Colonization, "Matured"
agriculture, Degraded. One
framework or many
frameworks? Negotiation
about the use

Community of people in
specific ecosystem

NGOs, OSGs, NARS,
Universities (time
availability limitations,
practical action focus)

"0" People promoters and
social welfare specialists.



Train with what's available
and with a range of
disciplines, occupations,
and roles. Monitor changes
as result. Conceptual /
methodological
adaptation/variation.
Chrono. note: more gender
trainers, more confidence
in dealing with "gender"
term, easier to expand from
agriculture to resource
focus. More process
focused.











4. The clientele for training: in FSRE
the client was NARS (National
Agricultural and Research Systems)
universities in a research domain. Now
with MERGE, we are working with NGOs
and grassroots organizations that have
very limited time availability. Whereas
university people could spend 8 months a
year in training, community leaders etc.
now have to pay someone to cover for
them if they go to a training and the
community wants to see right away what
they learned. They need practical
outcomes with an action focus..

5. Existing social science
involvement: in FSRE we worked with a
minimum of an agronomist and an
economist. There were conflicts because
the economist brought in some social
variables, but there was a lot of
protectionism on both sides. People
would say, "We have an economist, we
don't need other social scientists." Then
the economist might say, "I can cover the
social sciences, we don't need an
anthropologist" Now with MERGE we
have a big zero. We have very few trained


social scientists in the field for
conservation. What we do have are
people promoters and social welfare
specialists. They know community
organizations and how to reach social
services through government agencies.

6. The starting point in the process.
In FSRE we worked with the conceptual
framework in a draft, then went into an
analysis of cases before we moved into
case-study method training. In MERGE
we jumped right in with the training. We
started with what was available in gender
and saw how far we could go with it.
Next we're moving into monitoring the
changes that resulted from the training.
We are arriving at a conceptual/
methodological adaptation.

In the previous work on GA frameworks,
there were very few people who would call
themselves gender specialists or trainers -
we wanted to be sure that we knew what
we were talking about. Now we are not as
scared about taking gender into a new context.


3.6 Discussion: Gender, FSRE and MERGE.


Hilary Feldstein: One of the big
differences between FSRE and MERGE is
that FSRE worried more about specific
technologies without specific stakeholders.
Now we are looking at who the
stakeholders are and helping them to
identify their own situation. This is much
more complicated.


Marianne Schmink: This is really about a
landscape and its use.
Richard Bodmer: The process is quite
similar except for the experimentation
because it's so hard to experiment on
landscapes.
Susan Poats: There are many, many
outcomes of the MERGE process.
Without the ability to experiment, the


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


outcomes are quite different. The unit
here is a landscape and it's hard to
experiment.
Arun Agrawal: Although there is not as
much experimentation going on, there are
a lot of projects that deal with different
approaches. Specifically with gender there
have been lots of government projects on
forests but very little on women and
forests. So there is a kind of ad-hoc
experimentation going on.
Richard Bodmer: There's a lot of
experimentation on specific resources, but
when you look at landscapes, there are too
many variables to control for.
Jon Dain: Something else that is different
is the need to understand the context. In
FSRE, we could talk about corn or
production yields and everyone knew what
we were talking about. In conservation,
people may not know what you're talking
about. What does conservation mean?


What does development mean? We can't
assume that people know or understand
this.
Peter Hildebrand: For a long time we
didn't worry about stakeholders in FSRE
but we started to when gender analysis
came in. Now Kent Redford has me
worrying about wild animals as
stakeholders.
Jon Dain: Perhaps it's a process issue -
we are not trying to answer a specific
question but to see what the process is-
giving people tools instead of technology.
Avecita Chicch6n: There are different
audiences and different landscapes so we
can't be normative. There will be different
outcomes each time.
Jon Dain: We're trying to help people
think as opposed to producing something.
Susan Poats: So it's more process-focused
as opposed to product-focused.


3.7 FLACSO and FUNAN Training Session: Susan Poats.


Susan Poats: I want to give an example of
what I see happening in the training
sessions for MERGE. I was asked to do a
training session and I wanted to lay out
what we (FLACSO) had done with an
NGO (FUNAN). My research assistant,
Vicki Reyes, and I wanted to do a case on
gender but I didn't have a clue on how to
start, so here's what we did.


First we set out expectations: FLACSO
and FUNAN negotiated. FLACSO wanted
methodology, a case study, conceptual
growth, laboratory areas for students.
FUNAN wanted to include gender in their
management plan and the buffer zone.
They wanted to get women participating in
their activities why don't the women
come to the meetings?









MERGE

3.8 FLACSO and TNC/FUNAN training session outline (Susan Poats).



I. FLACSO Expectations
Methods:
Case study for training courses
Contribution of the conceptual frameivork
Laboratory space (research/ theses, training workshops)

II. FUNAN Expectations
Include gender in the management plan of the protected area
Include women in activities

III. Themes to Explore: "Landscape / Lifescape"
History of occupation in the area
Current community organization
Social and service oriented
Relations between groups and communities
Socio-economic situation and livelihood strategies
Gender analysis
Mapping
Activities Analysis (profiles, 24-hours, calendar)
Access to and control over resources, benefits, incentives
Typology of men and women
Relations with resources
Paramo
Water
Natural forests and reforested areas
Lands/soils
Ecological changes
Cultural elements linked to natural resources
Relations with conservation organizations

IV. Methodology:
Exploratory
Flexible
Participatory
Historical
Ethnographic
Methods of GA adapted to analysis of resources
Stakeholder analysis








Conceptualization Workshop Report


The themes that we explored have to do
with landscape-lifescape:

1. How the history of occupation of
the area affects current gender issues. In
this case it was moving from haciendas to
smallholders.
2. The current organization of the
community.
3. The current socio-economic
situation and survival strategies.
4. A typology of men and women.
5. Resource relations: the paramo,
water, the natural and reforested forests,
who owns the land.


3.9 Discussion: Landscape-Lifescape.

Marianne Schmink: Lifescape also means
change over time. How does that affect the
landscape approach?
Susan Poats: In Spanish we say paisaje
and then to re-say that to include a human
element is redundant. Paisaje includes
the humans in the landscape. Landscape is
English means only the land. We had to
invent the word lifescape.
Peter Polshek: For conservation
biologists, I think that landscape does
include people and the land and the time
factor, but it's fairly recent thinking.
Jorge Recharte: There are two words in
Spanish there'spaisaje andpasaje : one
means landscape and the other means
passage.
Susan Poats: For me it means opening up
the landscape and putting people on the
land. Lifescape is not restricted to
humans.


6. Ecological changes.
7. Cultural elements.
8. Organizational relations.

This helped us to place this in the right
context using a geographic way to talk
about the communities in the buffer zone.
We find that we are continually redefining
the types of communities maybe this is
similar to research domains. We are
talking with FUNAN about how their
conservation work differs with these
different groups and communities around
the conservation area.


Peter Polshek: We use the term life
history for animals
Marianne Schmink: Anthropology does
also.
Paquita Bath: How do you get trend
data?
Susan Poats: We're not looking at getting
long-term trends but at least with this
approach you see the pushes (invasion of
land) and pressure points (lands at risk) for
protected areas.
Anne Todd-Bockarie: Did they talk about
plants or animals going out from the
protected areas into the buffer?
Susan Poats: There are cases of
spectacled bears invading agricultural plots
but it may be either invasion or intentional
attraction by the farmer.
Karen Kainer: Many times when we're
talking about resource management, we're
talking about specific resources Brazill
nuts, game) and it's easy to extrapolate.










This is a good point of departure. Like the
palm example of why gender is'important
(Rocheleau 1988) because it shows
gendered use of a resource.


Richard Bodmer: Then at the landscape
level it gets very complicated.
Karen Kainer: For training, it's good to
use those examples and then extrapolate
into a broader context or landscape.


3.10 Gender Analysis in Small Farm Livelihood Systems: Peter Hildebrand.


Although I fought modeling in FSRE for a
long time, linear programming is a tool
that has been used for many years. I've
been incorporating gender analysis in small
farm livelihood systems using linear
programming in class.

The first thing that needs to be done to
make Linear Programming useful is to
simulate the current situation. This is what
economists often don't do --they don't go
out and gather real data; they mostly use
secondary data.

As an example, consider this typical three-
hectare farm with resources and activities.
You can put in resources such as land,
male and female labor, beginning cash,
additional male and female cash needs, and
maize consumption needs. You can put in
activities such as annual crops, cash crops,
livestock, etc. (See box 3.10.1).

This can be structured to show the
different resources or constraints, who has
access to these resources and how they
change over the year. This can include
cash flow, and it can incorporate shared
cash funds along with separate cash flows
for individuals. The program has the
constraints built in (i.e. the farm only has 3
hectares total or that there are xx number


of hours of female or male labor). The
program can be used to maximize different
objectives, such as household income,
female income, male income, etc. You can
look at power relationships using this
matrix. (See box 3.10.2) The program
allows you to see what would happen if,
for example, the man were to minimize his
labor inputs into the system.

Sustainability concerns also can be
incorporated. For example, one student
looked at the leaching of nitrate into the
soil and its impact on the farm.

Linear programming allows for different
comparisons such as the amount of money
left over for men and women at the end of
the year. (See box 3.10.3).

By maximizing one person's interests (i.e.
by maximizing male cash income in the
program), you can see the variable impacts
on other household members and on the
household as a whole. This is a tool that
can be used to incorporate gender and
power relations access, benefits, etc. in a
livelihood system. Students are using this
for a variety of purposes. Once the model
is structured, you can look at a variety of
alternatives.


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report

3.10.1 Case farm for gender analysis using linear programming (Peter Hildebrand).
I .


Resources and requirements:
Land
Male labor
Female labor
Male cash, beginning year
Female cash, beginning year
Additional male cash needs
Additional female cash needs
Maize for consumption


Activities:
Maize
Hay
Goats
Maize sold


approximately
approximately
around
around


3 ha
70 days
45 days
500 $
200 $
100 $
200 $
35 cwt


1-5 ha
0.5 ha
4 head
10-20 cwt


Comments:
Man keeps income from maize sold; income from goats is shared (woman gets largest
share); hay is used only to feed goats.


3.10.2 Suggested matrix for gender analysis (Peter Hildebrand).


Variables Sell Transfer Male cash Female cash Resource
Amount Maize Hay Maize Maize Transfer Transfer Goats RHS Use
Res/Const 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 3 0
Male labor 30 25 0 0 0 0 1 70 0
Fmle labor 10 5 0 0 0 0 6 45 0
Hay acctg 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0
Mze acctg -30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mze cons'n 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -35 0
M $ begyr 0 150 0 0 1 0 10 500 0
F $ beg yr 200 0 0 0 0 1 39 200 0
M $ end yr 0 0 60 0 1 0 130 600 0
F $ end yr 0 0 0 0 0 1 200 400 0
Ttl $ end yr 0 0 60 0 1 1 330 0 0








Conceptualization Workshop Report

3.10.1 Case farm for gender analysis using linear programming (Peter Hildebrand).
I .


Resources and requirements:
Land
Male labor
Female labor
Male cash, beginning year
Female cash, beginning year
Additional male cash needs
Additional female cash needs
Maize for consumption


Activities:
Maize
Hay
Goats
Maize sold


approximately
approximately
around
around


3 ha
70 days
45 days
500 $
200 $
100 $
200 $
35 cwt


1-5 ha
0.5 ha
4 head
10-20 cwt


Comments:
Man keeps income from maize sold; income from goats is shared (woman gets largest
share); hay is used only to feed goats.


3.10.2 Suggested matrix for gender analysis (Peter Hildebrand).


Variables Sell Transfer Male cash Female cash Resource
Amount Maize Hay Maize Maize Transfer Transfer Goats RHS Use
Res/Const 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Land 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 3 0
Male labor 30 25 0 0 0 0 1 70 0
Fmle labor 10 5 0 0 0 0 6 45 0
Hay acctg 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0
Mze acctg -30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mze cons'n 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -35 0
M $ begyr 0 150 0 0 1 0 10 500 0
F $ beg yr 200 0 0 0 0 1 39 200 0
M $ end yr 0 0 60 0 1 0 130 600 0
F $ end yr 0 0 0 0 0 1 200 400 0
Ttl $ end yr 0 0 60 0 1 1 330 0 0








MERGE

3.10.3 Comparison of Solutions Gender Analysis Basic Simulation (Peter Hildebrand).



ACTIVITIES
Sell Transfer Male cash Female cash
Value Maize Hay Maize Maize Transfer Transfer Goats
max'd ha ha cwt. cwt. $ $ Head

Yr end male 2.14 019 29 35 32.30 151.55 1.2
Yr end finale 1.17 0.74 0 35 106.17 7.41 4.9
Yrendfamly 1.67 0.63 15 35 29.84 36.45 4.2



RESOURCE USE
Male Female Mle cash $ Fmale cash Fmly cash
Value Land Labor Labor End Yr End Yr End Yr
max'd ha days days $ $ $

Yr end male 2.45 70 30 1940 400 2340
Yr end finale 2.40 58 45 748 995 1746
Yrendfamly 2.72 70 45 1480 875 2355





3.11 Discussion: GA and Linear Programming.


Marianne Schmink: One of the uses for
this in a natural resource management
situation is the possibility of a priori
simulating what would happen with a
particular activity, such as the impact of
incentives for tagua production on
household income. Arguello (1995) tested
whether price supports would help meet
conservation objectives.
Peter Hildebrand: Once you have built a
model that looks like the community or
household that you're working with, you
can put in new activities, such as tagua
production. Then you can see whether


new activities have a positive or negative
impact on conservation.
Paquita Bath: I don't see how this
extrapolates from agriculture to natural
resource management. For example,
looking at the labor needed for composting
and whether that affects natural resource
management?
Peter Hildebrand: A Ph.D. student (Kelly
1995) used Linear Programming to see
what the farmer's responses would be to
different weather patterns and different soil
fertility levels over the course of 25 years -
so, yes, one can follow through over the
long-term what happens with these








MERGE

3.10.3 Comparison of Solutions Gender Analysis Basic Simulation (Peter Hildebrand).



ACTIVITIES
Sell Transfer Male cash Female cash
Value Maize Hay Maize Maize Transfer Transfer Goats
max'd ha ha cwt. cwt. $ $ Head

Yr end male 2.14 019 29 35 32.30 151.55 1.2
Yr end finale 1.17 0.74 0 35 106.17 7.41 4.9
Yrendfamly 1.67 0.63 15 35 29.84 36.45 4.2



RESOURCE USE
Male Female Mle cash $ Fmale cash Fmly cash
Value Land Labor Labor End Yr End Yr End Yr
max'd ha days days $ $ $

Yr end male 2.45 70 30 1940 400 2340
Yr end finale 2.40 58 45 748 995 1746
Yrendfamly 2.72 70 45 1480 875 2355





3.11 Discussion: GA and Linear Programming.


Marianne Schmink: One of the uses for
this in a natural resource management
situation is the possibility of a priori
simulating what would happen with a
particular activity, such as the impact of
incentives for tagua production on
household income. Arguello (1995) tested
whether price supports would help meet
conservation objectives.
Peter Hildebrand: Once you have built a
model that looks like the community or
household that you're working with, you
can put in new activities, such as tagua
production. Then you can see whether


new activities have a positive or negative
impact on conservation.
Paquita Bath: I don't see how this
extrapolates from agriculture to natural
resource management. For example,
looking at the labor needed for composting
and whether that affects natural resource
management?
Peter Hildebrand: A Ph.D. student (Kelly
1995) used Linear Programming to see
what the farmer's responses would be to
different weather patterns and different soil
fertility levels over the course of 25 years -
so, yes, one can follow through over the
long-term what happens with these








Conceptualization Workshop Report


changes. It's not seamless yet (combining
annual crop modeling with natural
resource variables), but it's getting better.
Maria Arguello (1995) was able to see the
impact of timber extraction and varying
discount rates to see whether people care
about the future or not. You could look at
wildlife reproduction rates and extraction
rates to see natural resource management
trends.
Jorge Recharte: We don't know what the
impacts could be on the environment and
what the externalities are. Could Linear
Programming provide some indication at
the watershed level, for example?
Peter Hildebrand: This would depend on
the data that is inputted for the context of
the model. Based on best guesstimates of
data, the Linear Programming can tell you
whether the resulting changes would be
significant or not. Then it can show you
priority areas for getting your baseline
data. Some dedicated programs for Linear
Programming like LINDO are much more
sensitive. We are working with graduate
students who can learn; very few of them
are economists. Now we are using
Quattro Pro.
Hilary Feldstein: What if men want to
minimize labor and women want to
maximize income?
Peter Hildebrand: There are some
programs that allow you to test for
multiple outcomes but with this program
you can at least see the divergence
between different outcomes.
ArunAgrawal: Can it incorporate multiple
objectives?
Peter Hildebrand: Yes, you can lower
women's labor while maximizing men's
income for example. With Quattro Pro,


you can only maximize or minimize one
particular thing at a time.
PaquitaBath: Regarding the sensitivity in
judging interventions, can you test
different policy interventions?
Peter Hildebrand: Yes, you can look at
different constraints and see the policy
implications. For most small farms, land is
not the restricting variable.
Susan Poats: I see the research
applications for different graduate student
applications but how do we use this in the
field? We have a student who went into
inordinate detail to get data for her model
to get outcomes (i.e. if the producer
switches from corn to potatoes). But she
had to focus on very few cases (10) in
order to get the detailed data that she
needed. Some very good rapid
reconnaissance methods would have
gotten very similar results. What's the
practical application of Linear
Programming when you don't have the
data?
Peter Hildebrand: You do need the data.
If you have multi-disciplinary teams out
there working with the farmers, it's not
that hard to get the data. Once it's in the
Linear Programming, you're okay but it
does take time to get the data the first
time. Or you can use guesstimates. You
may be able to test policy implications,
such as what would happen if there were a
ban on burning of primary forest.
Marianne Schmink: Maria Arguello
(1995) was able to get data over a few
months and she came up with powerful
results on tagua extraction and forest
conservation. She worked with a very
small community, so her case may not be
generalizable to a large degree. She had
lots of data but wrote only one model.












Richard Bodmer: It's important that we
see the differences in models. If we use a
model that has fewer assumptions and
requires more data, does that work better


3.12 Discussion: GA and MERGE.

Marianne Schmink: Let's brainstorm
about the most important points we have
covered and what we have learned:
Peter Polshek: I learned what the social
scientists and biological scientists are
thinking about the world with regard to
landscapes, lifescapes and perspectives.
But we have to keep in mind that
biologists here at UF think quite differently
from biologists elsewhere.
Marianne Schmink: That is important
because it shows that we're not so far apart
as we thought (social vs. biological
scientists).
Jorge Recharte: The framework will have
to adapt to the various fields: a "sliding
framework" for different situations and
audiences.
Jon Dain: We need to have people from
both biological and social perspectives, or
we will not move forward. Every time the
biology participants have spoken, they've
said something pertinent.
Marianne Schmink: We give them more
weight because normally they are under
represented.


than a model that has more assumptions
but requires less time to get data?


RichardBodmer: But those of us here are
not fair representations.
Marianne Schmink: We don't represent
the norm in the social sciences either.
Susan Poats: What's the normal driving
framework of analysis? It's useful to play
with the different frameworks we've been
learning from our colleagues, i.e., cyclic
incrementalism, and how it drives the way
they do business. Marxist analytical
frameworks in Peru and Ecuador drive
how they think about things.
Marianne Schmink: So maybe the gulf is
not so great between the social and natural
scientists in this room; but out there, it's
different. Remember we're on the lunatic
fringe.
Jon Dain: I was impressed with the
tremendous range of data and variables
with which we're dealing. Is it realistic to
go out and do training courses for four
days and have an impact? I was really
struck by the enormity of what we're
dealing with. How do we prioritize
without losing gender?


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


KEY THEMES FOR MERGE




4.1 Theme 1. People and Nature.

4.1.1 People and Nature: Karen Kainer.


Karen Kainer: When we talk about
MERGE, it breaks down to a couple of
things. We're looking at people, at nature,
and the relationship between those two
components. We generally try to put some
order to the complex concepts.
This is one way we can break down the
nature box and give it order. The divisions
have meaning in biology, but it's definitely
a human construct. (See box 4.1.2)
Jorge Recharte: Society is always human.
It's a set of rules for communication and
behavior.
Sandra Russo: You notice how the
biologists just cut through the whole thing
on the "nature" side.
Richard Bodmer: The nature side is an
evolutionary construct, not a human


construct. A lot of the society and
community variables are human constructs.
Marianne Schmink: But, based on the
evolutionary processes, we constructed a
categorization of nature.
Karen Kainer: It's the humans who've
tried to group the "natural" categories.
Arun Agrawal: Are the limits of
ecosystems defined?
Richard Bodmer: The ecosystem itself
functions, not because we've defined it.
The everglades are going to function
differently if we take a section of it or the
whole thing, and their function is one that
has evolved, as a process.
Arun Agrawal: The same with social
orders. The American society will function
the same, no matter what you call it. How
you conceive of a society depends on the
rules you use to define it.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


KEY THEMES FOR MERGE




4.1 Theme 1. People and Nature.

4.1.1 People and Nature: Karen Kainer.


Karen Kainer: When we talk about
MERGE, it breaks down to a couple of
things. We're looking at people, at nature,
and the relationship between those two
components. We generally try to put some
order to the complex concepts.
This is one way we can break down the
nature box and give it order. The divisions
have meaning in biology, but it's definitely
a human construct. (See box 4.1.2)
Jorge Recharte: Society is always human.
It's a set of rules for communication and
behavior.
Sandra Russo: You notice how the
biologists just cut through the whole thing
on the "nature" side.
Richard Bodmer: The nature side is an
evolutionary construct, not a human


construct. A lot of the society and
community variables are human constructs.
Marianne Schmink: But, based on the
evolutionary processes, we constructed a
categorization of nature.
Karen Kainer: It's the humans who've
tried to group the "natural" categories.
Arun Agrawal: Are the limits of
ecosystems defined?
Richard Bodmer: The ecosystem itself
functions, not because we've defined it.
The everglades are going to function
differently if we take a section of it or the
whole thing, and their function is one that
has evolved, as a process.
Arun Agrawal: The same with social
orders. The American society will function
the same, no matter what you call it. How
you conceive of a society depends on the
rules you use to define it.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


KEY THEMES FOR MERGE




4.1 Theme 1. People and Nature.

4.1.1 People and Nature: Karen Kainer.


Karen Kainer: When we talk about
MERGE, it breaks down to a couple of
things. We're looking at people, at nature,
and the relationship between those two
components. We generally try to put some
order to the complex concepts.
This is one way we can break down the
nature box and give it order. The divisions
have meaning in biology, but it's definitely
a human construct. (See box 4.1.2)
Jorge Recharte: Society is always human.
It's a set of rules for communication and
behavior.
Sandra Russo: You notice how the
biologists just cut through the whole thing
on the "nature" side.
Richard Bodmer: The nature side is an
evolutionary construct, not a human


construct. A lot of the society and
community variables are human constructs.
Marianne Schmink: But, based on the
evolutionary processes, we constructed a
categorization of nature.
Karen Kainer: It's the humans who've
tried to group the "natural" categories.
Arun Agrawal: Are the limits of
ecosystems defined?
Richard Bodmer: The ecosystem itself
functions, not because we've defined it.
The everglades are going to function
differently if we take a section of it or the
whole thing, and their function is one that
has evolved, as a process.
Arun Agrawal: The same with social
orders. The American society will function
the same, no matter what you call it. How
you conceive of a society depends on the
rules you use to define it.









MERGE


4.1.2 Components of Nature and Society (Karen Kainer).


NATURE

Ecosystem
I
Community

Species
Species


Genes


Conservation of Biodiversity

People

People Nature People
People--* Nature *-People


People


Karen Kainer: Just as the social
categories have changed, so too have the
natural ones over the years.
Jorge Recharte: This is a western,
scientific discussion of nature.
Sandra Russo: Since the 17th century,
one of the perceived ways to control
nature has been to reduce it to its smallest
components, to useful categories.
However, the categories may not be useful
to non-western knowledge systems.
Karen Kainer: In that sense, it is a human
construct based on natural phenomena.
Just like in the biological, nature part, we
can break the people side down.
Karen Kainer: How big is a society?


Conservation of Natural Resources

Nature

Nature People Nature
Nature-- People '" Nature


Nature


Arun Agrawal: It depends, can be a couple
hundred people.
Marianne Schmink: Or it can be as big as
the world.
Susan Poats: It's a variable according to
what you want to use to define it.
Karen Kainer: What's the difference
between community and society?
Arun Agrawal: People use these terms in
different ways.
[Many voices]
Karen Kainer: Family. .a group of
genetically related people? ("No" from
everyone). What does kinship mean?
Avecita Chicch6n: Blood or marriage,
some close social relationship.


PEOPLE


Society


Communities


Families


Individuals








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Susan Poats: An even more dense node
than community.
Avecita Chicch6n: Family members are
those who eat together.
Peter Polshek: Would a family member
take risks for another?
Maianne Schminkl Maybe we should talk
about social class.
Avecita Chicch6n: If we're interested in
using natural resources, we can define
family very broadly, but if we're interested
in the variable of how we use resources,
we should use households rather than
family.
Cristina Espinosa: I agree "household" is
important in terms of resources, but I think
family is important in terms of gender.
Marianne Schmink: Both household and
social class have more economic, rather
than social, connotations, and that's why
they might be more useful than family. It's
definitely a smaller unit than a social class.
Peter Hildebrand: Is class even
necessary?
Arun Agrawal: I think class is a critical
category since we've been talking about
low-income people.
Avecita Chicch6n: Class is important
because it's economic and political, but
we're also talking about stakeholders
around a resource. Would stakeholders be
parallel to a guild?
Marianne Schmink: Stakeholders refers to
something specific, and I'm not sure we
want to make direct parallels between the
two systems.
Lisette Staal: When we're breaking down
the people box, we're doing it to think
about resources.
Karen Kainer: There are many different
ways to divide this, but I think we've made
some progress on how to break down the


categories with regard to natural
resources.
Peter Polshek: Some of the categories on
the nature side maybe not be as relevant in
terms of natural resource use (i.e., genes).
Karen Kainer: Yes, it's flexible. The next
category is individuals, and they can make
a difference or not. I'm missing the gender
one, and Im missing it on purpose. Where
would it fit? Richard said yesterday,
gender belongs in the "people bubble."
Arun Agrawal: I think the categories are
highly constructed in ways which are not
the same in biological sciences. Whether
we use class, society, etc. depends on the
kinds of questions we are asking. Two
things most would agree: we have society
and individuals as units of analysis. But in
deciding what comes between them, what
the most relevant factors are, there is
disagreement. When I look at the
categories, they can cross-cut each other
easily.
Richard Bodmer: "Guild" should be
"populations." The only independent thing
on both sides is individuals. Natural
selection acts on individuals.
Peter Hildebrand: We have something
that's parallel, and that's people, which is
parallel to species.
Karen Kainer: I don't think the boxes are
intended to be parallel.
Lisette Staal: Originally, the two sides
were the same shape and color, now
they're not, but where they're placed still
tends to make people make comparisons.
There are links but not parallels.

Hilary Feldstein: What you do with this
exercise is important. Wanting to show
that these bubbles can be put into
categories, and in a village situation, the










categories may be predefined. If you get
different responses, how do you use the
model?
Jorge Recharte: An example in
stakeholders' discussion. The right of
animals to reproduce and exist as a species
or individual. People with a Latin
American background most often would
say animals don't have a right to speak for
themselves. North Americans tend to
disagree.
Jon Dain: It seems to be related to
religion. In certain indigenous cultures,
animals have a right; but in Catholic
communities, humans dominate.
Susan Poats: We've seen this
presentation three times now, and each
time, I feel differently about it. What is it
we're trying to do? The opening statement:
"For people to start thinking about natural
resource use in an ordered way." What
are the other issues? People exert great
power on the ecosystem, and maybe we
should talk about that before we talk about
order.

Karen Kainer: [Moving on] Sometimes
we talk about the way nature has impacts
on people, i.e., the spectacled bear that
eats the corn, and all sorts of interactions
in which nature impacts people. And we
talk about how people impact nature. We
talk about conservation of natural
resources (on the people side), and we talk
about conservation of biodiversity (on the
nature side). Let's explore the relationship
between people and nature. First, there
are conflicts. Hurricanes are an example,
over hunting is another. An example of
harmony is the sustainable use of
resources. Often we get into concepts of
scale and differences in knowledge base.


Also, we talk about indifference to nature.
We have all these relationships. How can
we order it?
Cristina Espinosa: Indifference means
there is no major impact?
Karen Kainer: Yes, but again, it's a
question of scale. So, it appears that
everything is neat and ordered. But, it's
not. We could have nature represented by
more concrete terms, and there are many
different kinds of people. And people and
nature are surrounded by other factors,
such as economic, political, demographic,
legal, ethnic, geographic, cultural, etc. We
have lots of examples of when we put
people above nature; and, sometimes we
put nature above people (i.e., spotted owl,
nature reserves, etc.). It's not ordered, but
the categories help us to get a closer look
at some of the relationships between
people and nature.
Jon Dain: The difference between humans
and other species is that we are nowhere
near having the largest numbers, but we do
have the largest impact in terms of
destruction.
Karen Kainer: In the species category I
address that question by asking, within the
species box, which species has the most
impact?

Marianne Schmink: Kent Redford
encouraged us to think about these
different boxes but now I wonder .to
what purpose? If we don't make use of
that categorization, of what use is it?
Karen Kainer and Jon Dain: In the
training courses, we do break it down and
refer to them.
Jorge Recharte: It is very useful in
training to help people conceptualize the
relationship.


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Susan Poats: Maybe we should take
humans as a part of the species box-- or
take humans out of the species box and
think about why people have such an
impact. Then when we go back to talking
about different groups, we can talk about
changes in the landscape and the various
groupings of people..
RichardBodmer: I'm confused about the
people part: it seems that the categories of
economic, political, etc. could be broken
down as the people are.
Paquita Bath: Maybe we could talk about
different relationships at different levels.
Peter Polshek: There's a danger in the
linearity of the concepts we're trying to
impose. The trainees may not have the
visions of this representation.
Avecita Chicch6n: In social theory,
Spencer was one of the first to compare
nature with society, in order to understand
society. It seems that Kent was trying to
do the opposite--look at the social
categories of social scientists to compare
them to natural sciences. But for the
trainees, they understand the columns
more readily. It really depends on the
audience. For example, in Tambopata,
they participated more on the people side,
and for them the discovery was the nature
side. Then we realized there were
different levels of each category on each
side. We need to be careful about who the
audience is and what the goals are. I agree
with Peter on the danger of linearity, but
we need to relate to people through what
they know.


Jon Dain: I'm struck over and over that
this is such a mess. Even in this group, we
can't decide how to organize our
discussions. I'm thinking in terms of
training, how do we do it? Do we have to
totally tailor every session exactly to the
specific audience's needs?
Marianne Schmink: Maybe it doesn't
matter what's up there, but that there are
categories and orders. Karen put up
categories, and we revised them. How do
we deal with cross-cutting things on the
people side? Maybe it's one way to get
away from the tendency to make parallels:
if there were some way to talk about the
cross-cutting issues earlier and discuss
how the cross-cutting variables affect
people's relationships with nature at
different levels.
Sandra Russo: Ribbons that hang over
could be used to symbolize gender.
Lisette Staal: Originally, Karen had
concentric circles.
Karen Kainer: In the training, it's been
nice to have something laid out that we
can refer back to, especially using the
terminology.
Richard Bodmer: In working with
communities, it seems like it would
complicate things to put it in this order.
Instead, there would be ecosystems,
species, populations, and then individuals.
If I were a resource user, it would be more
relevant to me.
Avecita Chicchon: We're falling again into
the use of natural resources, and not
conservation of biodiversity.










4.2 Theme 2. Ecofeminisms.

4.2.1 Ecofeminisms: Sandra Russo.

Ecofeminism characteristically focuses on
the western tradition's naturalization of
women and feminization of nature
(Merchant 1981), drawing from them the
conclusion that the domination of women
and the domination of nature have been
intimately connected and mutually
reinforcing (King 1989).

What makes ecological feminism
ecological is its understanding of and
commitment to the importance of valuing
and preserving ecosystems (whether
understood as organism, individual,
populations, communities and their
interactions, or as nutrient flows among
entities "in a biospherical net of
relationships"). This includes the
recognition of human beings as ecological
beings (as "relational and ecological
selves") and of the necessity of an
environmental dimension to any adequate
feminism or feminist philosophy.
According to ecological feminists, any
feminism which is not informed by
ecological insights, especially women-
nature insights, and any environmental
philosophy which is not informed by
ecofeminist insights is simply inadequate
(Warren 1995).

Warren (1990) describes a conceptual
framework as a set of basic beliefs, values,
attitudes, and assumptions which shape
and reflect how one views oneself and
one's world. It is a socially constructed
lens through which one perceives oneself
and one's world. A conceptual framework


is "oppressive" when it functions to
explain, justify, and maintain systems and
relationships of domination and
subordination. A "patriarchal conceptual
framework" is an oppressive conceptual
framework which functions to explain,
justify, and maintain the subordination of
women by men. Feminism pays attention
to women. There are many different kinds
of feminism but all agree that sexual
oppression is wrong and they seek to
dismantle or destroy the patriarchy in its
various forms. Thus, for an analysis to be
"feminist", it must include an analysis of
sex, gender and patriarchy. It must look
for various ways that sexist oppression
damages women and seek nonpatriarchical
alternatives to them.

How women and nature are
conceptualized varies by culture and
history; thus, various ecofeminist theories
have been developed based on these
conceptualizations. The different kinds of
ecofeminism (e.g., liberal, marxist,
cultural, socialist, etc.) can be understood
by how this hypothesized connection of
women and nature oppressions is
understood and elaborated. For example,
radical, gynocentric ecofeminism reduce
both forms to matters of male domination
and celebrates women's biology and nature
as sources of female power. Other
theorists develop an account of a common
logic of domination (Warren 1990) or a
shared colonization (Plumwood 1993)
which gives rise to a common formative
structure of "othering" shared by women,


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


animals, nature, and racially and ethnically
colonized groups.

The logic of colonization or oppression is
linked to the concept of dualism, a key


4.2.2 Dualisms (Sandra Russo).


concept of feminist thought which
constructs identity and boundaries in terms
of exclusionary contrasts.


Dualisms


Culture
Reason
Male
Mind
Master
Reason
Rationality
Reason
Mind, spirit
Freedom
Universal
Human
Civilized
Production
Public
Subject
Self


Nature
Nature
Female
Body (nature)
Slave
Matter (physicality)
Animality (nature)
Emotion (nature)
Nature
Necessity (nature)
Particular
Nature (non-human)
Primitive (nature)
Reproduction (nature)
Private
Object
Other


Everything on the "superior" side of the
contrasts can be represented as forms of
reason and everything on the underside can
be represented as forms of nature. The
structure of the reason/nature dualism is
the perspective of power, representing a
way of looking at the world characteristic
of the dominant, white, male Eurocentric
ruling class (Hartsock 1990). The
dualisms of male/female, mental/manual
(mind/body), civilized/primitive,


human/nature correspond directly to and
naturalize gender, class, race and nature
oppressions respectively, although a
number of others are indirectly involved
(Plumwood 1993). A dualism is more
than simply a relation of dichotomy,
difference, or non-identity, and more than
a simple hierarchical relationship. In
dualistic construction, the values and the
areas of life associated with the dualized
other are systematically and pervasively










constructed and depicted as "inferior." A
dualism constructs central cultural
concepts and identities, making equality
and mutuality literally unthinkable. The
logical structure of dualisms includes:

Backgrounding (denial): the view of the
other as inessential (master's view);
denying the dependency; denying the
importance of the other's contribution or
even his or her reality; treating the other as
background to the master's foreground.

Radical exclusion (hyperseparation):
magnifying, emphasizing, and maximizing
the number and importance of differences
and eliminating or treating as inessential
the shared qualities.

Incorporation (relational definition): the
underside of a dualistically conceived pair
is defined in relation to the upperside as a
lack, a negativity. The relation is not one
of equal, mutual or equally relational,
definition; defining the other only in
relation to the self therefore, he or she is
not an independent other.

Instrumentalism (objectification): since
the relationship is seen as that of a superior
to a separate inferior, the lower side has no
intrinsic value but is merely useful, a
resource. The identity is constructed
instrumentally and written in terms of
usefulness to the center.

Homogenization or stereotyping:
differences among the inferiorized group
are disregarded (homogenized), e.g.,
gender stereotyping. The demand for just
two sharply differentiated sexes is a social


creation unsupported by any natural order
(Frye 1983).

As Frye (1983) points out, members of the
dualized classes are assumed to be both
very like one another and very unlike
members of the opposed group. In the
case of women, the effects of dualism are
polarized, complementary of complicit
forms of identity which ascribe to women
a nature, role and fate subsidiary to that of
men.

In the case of the human/nature dualism,
the result is a polarized construction of
both gender identity and human identity
which conceives humans as above and
discontinuous from the lower order of
nature, which has the homogenized status
of "Other".

Dualism then, imposes a conceptual
framework which polarizes and splits apart
into two orders of being what can (or
could) be conceptualized and treated in
more integrated and unified ways
(Plumwood 1993). Dualism doesn't create
differences; it capitalizes on existing
patterns. It provides the cultural
grounding for class, male, Euro, western,
ethno, and human-centeredness. Escaping
dualism does not mean, however, that the
resolution is merger, fitting women into a
masculine model, the elimination of the
distinctions, or reversal.

"Much of the stress on affirming women's
difference has resulted from an effort to
problematize the character of a culture
whose central protagonist, the apparently
neutral rational subject, is defined in
opposition not only to women but to many


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


other oppressed groups and even to nature
itself. But focusing exclusively on
women's difference as the basis of
opposition tries to make women the
symbolic and political bearers of the entire
domain of exclusion of western culture
(Bacchi 1990). Thus, a conception of
women's difference has been employed to
articulate in a novel way a very powerful
social critique and alternative vision, but
the attempt to present the alternative
entirely in terms of gender in the fashion of
much radical feminism places on this
critique a load which has been too heavy
for it to bear alone. The contraction by
this feminist critique of the identity of the
master to an identity which is simply male
tends to obscure the real political issues
and the real measures which are needed to
bring about change (Hooks 1989). To
shake the conceptual foundations of these
systems of domination we must unmask
more fully the identity of the master hidden
behind the neutral guise of the human and
of the ideals of rationality." (Plumwood
1993).

Thus, while ecofeminists are correct in
challenging dualisms, the solution does not
lie, as suggested by postmodernists, in
simply affirming the reversed side of the
dichotomy that has been devalued (e.g.,
uncritical reversal, Alcoff 1988). Rather,
a reconceptualization of the knowledge,
reality, and ethics would involve
approaches that recognize both the value
of connections between particular
individuals and the value of nature or the
environment conceived of as both material
entities and abstractions. We must take
care to define which kinds of connections
are ethically valuable and which are not.


Plumwood (1993) suggests that we must
recognize both continuity and difference,
and that both are appropriate responses to
different parts of the overall problem of
escaping dualized gender identity.
Understanding the logic of domination and
how it works could be used by
ecofeminists to emphasize commonalities
and break down barriers of exclusion,
whether the barriers be the male-female,
the hard vs. soft science, or the western vs.
non-western dichotomies.

The conceptual connections between the
domination of nature and the domination
of women combined with the "othering" of
nature and women which allows such
domination is the lens through which
ecofeminists can analyze relationships and
situations. Women must recognize that
not only have they been dominated (by the
patriarchy) but that they may be
dominators (of other races, cultures, or of
nature). An analysis using ecofeminist
approach could consider the following:

1. What is gained by using the
ecofeminist "lens" or conceptual
framework which links women and nature
through the two "projects" of feminism
and environmentalism? A feminist analysis
includes analysis of sex, gender, and
patriarchy; an environmental or ecological
analysis includes an analysis of the
ecological beings in an ecosystem,
including humans.

2. Does a dismantling of the
domination and othering promote better
understanding of a particular situation?
An ecofeminist analysis of the net of
relationships both human and ecological










- would recognize and eliminate male-
gender bias and masculine readings of the
environment without diminishing the
importance of pieces and parts of the
whole.

3. Can "hard" scientists and social
scientists working from a. feminist
viewpoint reach a common ground for
analysis? And a common language? An
ecofeminist analysis would not shy away
from hard, scientific data but would
incorporate such information into the
framework of analysis.

4. Does the stereotypical female
perspective of caring, trust, deep feeling,
and understanding of a situation on a level
other than rationality improve or add to
the analysis? As there is more than one
way to observe and describe ecological
phenomena, might an ecofeminist analysis
provide more than one point of view that
allows for diversity and difference?


4.2.3 Discussion: Ecofeminisms.

Jon Dain: What good is ecofeminism
then?
Sandra Russo: Because there are a lot of
feminists who are making an effort; and it
provides a space in which women can
work.
Marianne Schmink: You've given us
essences. It seems that we're more
interested in a more analytical approach.
There are versions of ecofeminism that
don't stop at this point. Many would argue
that whenever we think in these dualism,
the self and other, it's just a part of the way


5. Does an insistence on gender
analysis of households, communities, and
livelihood systems imply a continued
criticism that this is an imposed, Western,
white middle-class feminist viewpoint? An
ecofeminist approach and analysis which
includes local culture, history and
ecosystems would allow a deconstruction
of such criticism and an empowerment of
all participants -- men, women, and nature.

There is neither one ecofeminism nor one
ecofeminist philosophy (Warren 1995).
Can we, as ecofeminists, draw out the
gender, ecological, political, and ethical
implications of the choice of narratives and
identities we endorse, as asked by
Plumwood (1996)? As she suggests, we
need to be able to recognize ourselves as
both human and as nature, and be at home
in both.


we think, and we just have to be conscious
of it in our own endeavors. We keep the
dualisms, but maybe what we're doing is
moving the pluses and minuses on the
columns.
Sandra Russo: But neither side is better.
Lisette Staal: What would be an
integrated model? And, what does it mean
to take an analytical approach?
Marianne Schmink: I'm drawing a
distinction between essences and analyzing
relationships in different contexts.


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Hilary Feldstein: A lot of the discussion
of ecofeminism is that women and nature
are indelibly linked. Another way is to
look at whether women's roles as keepers
of the household are appropriate because
of their relationship to nature.
Cristina Espinosa: I think that besides
making us aware of the dualisms, it also
helps us focus on people and nature, and
on the relationships of production/
reproduction.
Jorge Recharte: Someone in Ecuador was
opposing the idea of having a gender
component in a research program. He was


worried that gender was an imposed
concern by North American social
movements. He thought there were
culturally dependent ways of
conceptualizing the universe.
Connie Campbell: Even at the community
level, the subject of women and natural
resource management is seen as a feminist
agenda rather than a interest in analyzing
who does what. There has been so much
idealization of women as the proper
caretakers of the environment.


4.3 Theme 3. Population, Gender, and the Environment.


4.3.1 Population, Gender and the Environment: Some Critical Perspectives.
Marianne Schmink.


Marianne Schmink: I used this
opportunity to order my own thinking
about things that have been disturbing me
about conservation. I read several things,
but particularly the Reversed Realities
book, (Kabeer 1994) and Population and
Environment: Rethinking the Debate


(Arizpe et al. 1994). I've done previous
work in the population area from the
development side, and it's been disturbing
to see population reinserted into the debate
from the conservation side.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Hilary Feldstein: A lot of the discussion
of ecofeminism is that women and nature
are indelibly linked. Another way is to
look at whether women's roles as keepers
of the household are appropriate because
of their relationship to nature.
Cristina Espinosa: I think that besides
making us aware of the dualisms, it also
helps us focus on people and nature, and
on the relationships of production/
reproduction.
Jorge Recharte: Someone in Ecuador was
opposing the idea of having a gender
component in a research program. He was


worried that gender was an imposed
concern by North American social
movements. He thought there were
culturally dependent ways of
conceptualizing the universe.
Connie Campbell: Even at the community
level, the subject of women and natural
resource management is seen as a feminist
agenda rather than a interest in analyzing
who does what. There has been so much
idealization of women as the proper
caretakers of the environment.


4.3 Theme 3. Population, Gender, and the Environment.


4.3.1 Population, Gender and the Environment: Some Critical Perspectives.
Marianne Schmink.


Marianne Schmink: I used this
opportunity to order my own thinking
about things that have been disturbing me
about conservation. I read several things,
but particularly the Reversed Realities
book, (Kabeer 1994) and Population and
Environment: Rethinking the Debate


(Arizpe et al. 1994). I've done previous
work in the population area from the
development side, and it's been disturbing
to see population reinserted into the debate
from the conservation side.









MERGE



PROPOSITIONS (Marianne Schmink)

1) The population/environment relationship is often argued at the macro-level, based on
associations between aggregate measures of population growth and environmental
degradation. This argument is simplistic and reductionist and obscures the complexity
of factors that mediate relationships between population and environment. It ignores the
crucial North/South differences in pollution and in consumption of natural resources per
capital (Arizpe et al. 1994)

2) The solution to high rates of population growth is often assumed to be through family
planning measures, specifically through the distribution of contraceptives. But research
on family planning efforts indicates that "the best contraceptive is development",
specifically development with a direct focus on women's reproductive rights, including
access to education, employment and health care focused on maternal-infant health.
These are the factors that are associated with reduced fertility (Kabeer 1994; Sen 1994).

3) A better understanding of population and environment requires analysis of the complex
relations at the local level. This begins with the focus on multiple local users of natural
resources, and how distinct groups negotiate among themselves. It includes an
understanding of how factors at regional, national and international levels affect resource
use over time.

4) A focus on "sustainable livelihoods" provides for a more equitable approach as well as
a more effective strategy for natural resource conservation. It also provides the basis for
a fundamental critique of narrowly market-oriented concepts and strategies of
"sustainable development", such as marketing of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and
"smart wood."

5) There are significant parallels between critiques of market-focused concepts of
"sustainable development" as being both "gender-blind" and "nature-blind" (these are my
terms). The free market orientation assumes a world made up of self-interested
individuals whose value-free economic choices are governed by market efficiency. This
perspective ignores power differences that affect market outcomes (Kabeer 1994). In fact
"women" and "nature" face the market from a disadvantaged position, in part because
their non-market characteristics are devalued in the market.

6) A focus on "sustainable livelihoods" directs primary attention to the local, micro-level
setting, and is capable of going beyond the narrow market focus to improve prospects for
gender equity and for resource conservation. This approach is holistic (it focuses on
quality of life and ecosystem over the long term) and it is normative (both market and
non-market values matter). It assumes potential conflicts between multiple users and the
need to negotiate among them to achieve sustainable development goals (Arizpe 1994;
Kabeer 1994; Sen 1994).








Conceptualization Workshop Report


4.3.2 Discussion: Population, Gender, and the Environment.


Arun Agrawal: When Kabeer criticizes the
market for being gender blind, is it based
on the kinds of livelihoods women are
connected with or on their gender?
Marianne Schmink- You can't reduce
people to their occupations. People do
have bodies, yet all the other things people
do that are not related to the market are
extracted by the market perspective.
Because for women, reproduction is so
central, that's why they never come to the
market merely as productive actors.
Everyone is a bundle of characteristics,
and the part of it that the market ignores is
the biggest for women.
Jorge Recharte: In Ecuador and Peru, in
the Andes, social scientists have not
looked at the importance of markets to
people. The focus, for example has been
on agrarian reform because it was an issue
of politics and power, with less emphasis
on markets, although that's an interest that
is crucial to small producers.
Marianne Schmink: I'm not arguing that
markets are not important, nor am I
idealizing subsistence-based economies.
But, the market is part of a holistic system.
For example, in Richard Bodmer's site,
Josh McDaniel (1995) found that one of
the reasons local people were harvesting
fish was to pay for emergency medical
costs. The market is part of that system,
but not all.
Arun Agrawal: The market is defined by
neoclassicists as sites where voluntary,
equal exchanges take place. We tend to
critique just the neoclassical characteristics


and not the real role markets play. If we
take markets seriously, it becomes possible
to test whether the involvement of market
economies would be dangerous to
subsistence economies.
Marianne Schmink: I'm arguing that
markets are not always the main
mechanism by which people value their
resources.
Jon Dain: Proposition No. 5 (last
sentence) -- the same thing can be said of
poor peasant men. Are women in a more
disadvantaged position than men?
Marianne Schmink: To me, it's a
fundamental critique of development.
Those who don't buy the particular market
perspective assert that there are other
factors that are important. If we are
interested in equity and natural resource
conservation, then the focus only on
market values will not work.
Avecita Chicch6n: I think there are
differences between market places and
markets. In Peru, there is a reification of
what the market does, so if you cannot
value something in economic terms, then it
doesn't count. The problem is that there
are externalities, such as nature and
women's labor, that have not been valued
in economic systems. People making
policies in Peru are men who are
nature/gender blind. The assumption is
that the market will fix the demand for
whatever there is. Even peasant and
indigenous communities are no longer
protected.








MERGE


4.3.3 Population and Environment: Paquita Bath.


Paquita Bath presentation: The macro-
analysis of population is important.
Increasingly we're seeing isolated
ecosystems. Quick review: the human
population will have an additional billion
people over the next three decades.
Getting back to Marianne's comments,
macro-level population will have huge
impacts. There are increasing
consumption pressures in the form of
mining, gas extraction. There is a very
high demand for contraceptives in the


isolated areas I mentioned earlier. The
biggest outside factor is local migration.
The paradigm we have now is to empower
local communities with better tenure, but
only a certain number of people can
maintain a custodial relationship with
resources. But it will become a greater
political debate as outside migrants move
into these isolated areas (all of which will
come from increased population growth).


4.3.4 Discussion: Population and Environment.


RichardBodbner: When we began in Peru,
we started with a different premise. We
didn't start with the idea of increased
access. As conservationists we saw there
was no one else who would have an
interest in keeping outsiders and poachers
out.
Jon Dain: I don't see the role of
reproduction/population. The real
bogeyman is market forces, which push
people to migrate.
Paquita Bath: The reproduction around
these particular areas is not the issue.
There are a few million people who might
not be born as a result of contraception,
and it's an "easy" solution to one of the
potential problems. We also need to
address technologies ...
Cristina Espinosa: The issue of why
population will be a pressure on these
areas and not everywhere is not clear.


PaquitaBath: I didn't intend to make that
point. Population pressure will occur
everywhere.
Jorge Recharte: In Peru, there is evidence
that the population has stabilized. The
Amazon population is growing at a high
rate, but it will stabilize.
Paquita Bath: But migration will still be a
problem.
Susan Poats: Both situations have
inherent contradictions. Some places
where you have natural resources are
where haciendas were established, and
land generally wasn't valued. But the
breaking up of haciendas creates higher
population densities ...
Marianne Schmink: Demography is
interesting because it deals with birth,
death, and migration, and that's it. The
only point where I disagree with Paquita's
analysis is extrapolating from
overpopulation to overuse of resources.
The link is missing migration, institutions,








MERGE


4.3.3 Population and Environment: Paquita Bath.


Paquita Bath presentation: The macro-
analysis of population is important.
Increasingly we're seeing isolated
ecosystems. Quick review: the human
population will have an additional billion
people over the next three decades.
Getting back to Marianne's comments,
macro-level population will have huge
impacts. There are increasing
consumption pressures in the form of
mining, gas extraction. There is a very
high demand for contraceptives in the


isolated areas I mentioned earlier. The
biggest outside factor is local migration.
The paradigm we have now is to empower
local communities with better tenure, but
only a certain number of people can
maintain a custodial relationship with
resources. But it will become a greater
political debate as outside migrants move
into these isolated areas (all of which will
come from increased population growth).


4.3.4 Discussion: Population and Environment.


RichardBodbner: When we began in Peru,
we started with a different premise. We
didn't start with the idea of increased
access. As conservationists we saw there
was no one else who would have an
interest in keeping outsiders and poachers
out.
Jon Dain: I don't see the role of
reproduction/population. The real
bogeyman is market forces, which push
people to migrate.
Paquita Bath: The reproduction around
these particular areas is not the issue.
There are a few million people who might
not be born as a result of contraception,
and it's an "easy" solution to one of the
potential problems. We also need to
address technologies ...
Cristina Espinosa: The issue of why
population will be a pressure on these
areas and not everywhere is not clear.


PaquitaBath: I didn't intend to make that
point. Population pressure will occur
everywhere.
Jorge Recharte: In Peru, there is evidence
that the population has stabilized. The
Amazon population is growing at a high
rate, but it will stabilize.
Paquita Bath: But migration will still be a
problem.
Susan Poats: Both situations have
inherent contradictions. Some places
where you have natural resources are
where haciendas were established, and
land generally wasn't valued. But the
breaking up of haciendas creates higher
population densities ...
Marianne Schmink: Demography is
interesting because it deals with birth,
death, and migration, and that's it. The
only point where I disagree with Paquita's
analysis is extrapolating from
overpopulation to overuse of resources.
The link is missing migration, institutions,








Conceptualization Workshop Report


etc., that may or may not reflect a birthrate
problem.


Paquita Bath: In the history of mankind,
we've never seen a population boom like


4.4 Theme 4. Institutions and Property Rights.

4.4.1 Institutions for Natural Resource Management: Arun Agrawal.


Arun Agrawal: I want to present a
provocative take on institutions and
question our preconceptions about
institutions. I conceptualize institutions
differently from the neoclassical economics
approach (a group of people who talk
about relationships among people and the
economy as if that which drives change is
efficiency. This is actually an idea drawn
from Darwin). Their perspective is that
institutions are sets of rules, such as those
for resource management. We can
consider five institutions when we talk
about managing natural resources:
markets, communities, state ownership,
open access, and closed access. The basic
argument I want to make is that there are
two problems with this conception. One is
that we tend to confuse rules with actors.
When we talk about communities as
institutions, we confuse the people with
the rules that guide their actions. The
second problem is that ideal types are
confused with real-life institutions. There
are no institutions that conform with our
abstract notions of what a market,
community, or state is. There are some
elements in the community, for example,


that can respond to
characteristically think of as
the state.


what we
a feature of


Think of institutions as rules. Any
institution must have authority or power.
If there is a community that can exercise
power over its resources, then it has
similar feature as a state. To come to what
I believe are necessary components of any
institution aiming at NRM, we should
consider three types of rules: 1) rules that
assign ownership rights over resources
among different actors (to access, to use,
to exclude, to transfer); 2) management
rules--rights to monitor if somebody
possesses the right to transfer; the person
doesn't transfer more than he is able;
people who break rules can be punished;
3) the right to resolve disputes, which can
arise over interpretation of what a right
means or an application of the rule.

The relevance of institutions to effective
NRM is that proper institutions are
necessary, but they're not sufficient. We
can change institutions, but they still might
not be effective if the underlying political-
economic structure is not appropriate.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


etc., that may or may not reflect a birthrate
problem.


Paquita Bath: In the history of mankind,
we've never seen a population boom like


4.4 Theme 4. Institutions and Property Rights.

4.4.1 Institutions for Natural Resource Management: Arun Agrawal.


Arun Agrawal: I want to present a
provocative take on institutions and
question our preconceptions about
institutions. I conceptualize institutions
differently from the neoclassical economics
approach (a group of people who talk
about relationships among people and the
economy as if that which drives change is
efficiency. This is actually an idea drawn
from Darwin). Their perspective is that
institutions are sets of rules, such as those
for resource management. We can
consider five institutions when we talk
about managing natural resources:
markets, communities, state ownership,
open access, and closed access. The basic
argument I want to make is that there are
two problems with this conception. One is
that we tend to confuse rules with actors.
When we talk about communities as
institutions, we confuse the people with
the rules that guide their actions. The
second problem is that ideal types are
confused with real-life institutions. There
are no institutions that conform with our
abstract notions of what a market,
community, or state is. There are some
elements in the community, for example,


that can respond to
characteristically think of as
the state.


what we
a feature of


Think of institutions as rules. Any
institution must have authority or power.
If there is a community that can exercise
power over its resources, then it has
similar feature as a state. To come to what
I believe are necessary components of any
institution aiming at NRM, we should
consider three types of rules: 1) rules that
assign ownership rights over resources
among different actors (to access, to use,
to exclude, to transfer); 2) management
rules--rights to monitor if somebody
possesses the right to transfer; the person
doesn't transfer more than he is able;
people who break rules can be punished;
3) the right to resolve disputes, which can
arise over interpretation of what a right
means or an application of the rule.

The relevance of institutions to effective
NRM is that proper institutions are
necessary, but they're not sufficient. We
can change institutions, but they still might
not be effective if the underlying political-
economic structure is not appropriate.








MERGE


4.4.2 Discussion: Institutions for Natural Resource Management.


Hilary Feldstein: How can we apply this
to issues of MERGE?
Arun Agrawal: We shouldn't just say
gender makes a difference, we should talk
explicitly about women and men and the
fact that there must be institutional change,
with a concomitant change in the
underlying political-economic structure. It
would be easy to look at institutional rules
that govern access, use rights, etc. to
different actors in a given context, and
look at how women are disadvantaged, or
look at how actors are differentially
endowed to use resources. Then we could
look at how intervention would be most
effective.
Jorge Recharte: How does your vision of
institutions differ from the more traditional
view of institutions as mechanisms for
communication? An ethnography of how
women in the Andes have powerful
mechanisms to exert their power, for
example, through shame.
Arun Agrawal: I wouldn't say they are
contradictory.
Sandra Russo: Rocheleau takes a step
further than what you're saying--there
needs to be a change in political ecology as
well as political economy. Institutions are
important, and political economy is
important, but so is the environment.
Arun Agrawal: The neo-classical
approach also has assumptions about what
drives individuals. To some extent, we all
accept that individuals are self-interested
individuals.
Susan Poats: It's useful to think of
institutions as nodes of power, nodes of
rules, and sets of incentives, especially to
think about access and control. It's also


timely, because all institutions in the
Andean countries are beginning to think
about how to modernize and shift from not
getting the prices right to getting the
policies right. We deal with multi-cultural,
multi-use, multi-positioned individuals
with different incentives.
Marianne Schmink. If we look at different
points of intervention, there are very big
political economy challenges and also very
practical opportunities when we look at
institutions. Melissa Leach (1992) talks
about rules and institutions that establish
the way that people should do agroforestry
and how people did it differently every
year because of their gendered
relationships. She talked about
agroforestry as performance and how it
comes out every time with the blending of
gendered relationships and institutions.
Then institutions become a focus of
negotiation, which is very interesting.
Arun Agrawal: I started thinking about
power when reading Foucault because the
thinking is so different from the New
Institutionalists. This could be an effective
marriage. The three set of rules that I
talked about are not static. The behavior
that they are supposed to guide occurs in
relationship to the rules but it never really
follows the rules (i.e. the speed limit). The
distinction between performance and
pedagogy is such that rules are not static
and cannot be static. In some sense the
three sets of rules are sequential and are
highly context-specific. Knowing where to
intervene would depend precisely on what
Marianne and Susan were saying.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


4.4.3 Gender and Property Rights: Hilary Feldstein.


Hilary Feldstein: I've pulled out some of
the discussions from IFPRI (International
Electronic Conference on Gender and
Property Rights). We have four types of
tenure: 1) ownership, private title, 2) open
access, 3) closed access (government
protection), 4) common property
(normative or legal). Some people add a
5th category where there may be equal
ownership by all members as opposed to
ownership residing in a senior leader or
council.

There were many descriptions of rights
and their applications but I wanted to
know how I would go into a new situation
and define what to look at. I came up with


five categories which subsume two of
Arun's categories. The five categories are:
1. distinct kinds of rights;
2. modes for transmission; (legal,
normative) we have to look at
implementation and adjudication;
3. local context how people used the
land before, what the gendered
relationships are, all the ways in which
people would use resources;
4. national context land reform etc.
5. effects of all of these together
(gender effects, equity, empowerment,
production efficiency, conservation,
decreasing risk, etc.)In the field it may be
that you are working in an area with three
different types of land tenure (protected
areas, buffer zones, etc.)


4.4.4 Discussion: Gender and Property Rights.


Arun Agrawal: What about risk
ameliorization or risk management?
Different types of rights may impact the
risks.
Marianne Schmink. The stimulus to invest
also plays into that risk.
Peter Hildebrand: For example, the
decision of whether or not to plant trees
has to do with risk assessment.
Marianne Schmink: It seems that we
could focus on better ways to deal with
these issues. Perhaps with the access and
control methods we certainly are beginning
to think about the questions we might ask.
Hilary Feldstein: In the FSRE approach,
we looked more at access and control in a


limited sense with specific resources and
now we are in a broader context.
Peter Polshek: Could this matrix be
adopted into a training context?
Susan Poats: Perhaps to elicit responses
and then use this for discussion.
Maianne Schmink. The example with the
palm (Rocheleau 1988 response to these
questions) shows access and rights over
different parts of the resource.
Susan Poats: But with FSRE, it was a
specific resource for production. Now in
NRM the resources are very different as
are the questions of access and control.
While the tree and its parts is a useful








Conceptualization Workshop Report


4.4.3 Gender and Property Rights: Hilary Feldstein.


Hilary Feldstein: I've pulled out some of
the discussions from IFPRI (International
Electronic Conference on Gender and
Property Rights). We have four types of
tenure: 1) ownership, private title, 2) open
access, 3) closed access (government
protection), 4) common property
(normative or legal). Some people add a
5th category where there may be equal
ownership by all members as opposed to
ownership residing in a senior leader or
council.

There were many descriptions of rights
and their applications but I wanted to
know how I would go into a new situation
and define what to look at. I came up with


five categories which subsume two of
Arun's categories. The five categories are:
1. distinct kinds of rights;
2. modes for transmission; (legal,
normative) we have to look at
implementation and adjudication;
3. local context how people used the
land before, what the gendered
relationships are, all the ways in which
people would use resources;
4. national context land reform etc.
5. effects of all of these together
(gender effects, equity, empowerment,
production efficiency, conservation,
decreasing risk, etc.)In the field it may be
that you are working in an area with three
different types of land tenure (protected
areas, buffer zones, etc.)


4.4.4 Discussion: Gender and Property Rights.


Arun Agrawal: What about risk
ameliorization or risk management?
Different types of rights may impact the
risks.
Marianne Schmink. The stimulus to invest
also plays into that risk.
Peter Hildebrand: For example, the
decision of whether or not to plant trees
has to do with risk assessment.
Marianne Schmink: It seems that we
could focus on better ways to deal with
these issues. Perhaps with the access and
control methods we certainly are beginning
to think about the questions we might ask.
Hilary Feldstein: In the FSRE approach,
we looked more at access and control in a


limited sense with specific resources and
now we are in a broader context.
Peter Polshek: Could this matrix be
adopted into a training context?
Susan Poats: Perhaps to elicit responses
and then use this for discussion.
Maianne Schmink. The example with the
palm (Rocheleau 1988 response to these
questions) shows access and rights over
different parts of the resource.
Susan Poats: But with FSRE, it was a
specific resource for production. Now in
NRM the resources are very different as
are the questions of access and control.
While the tree and its parts is a useful










Marianne Schmink: Plus you'd also want
to look at the policy implications.
Jorge Recharte: I want to understand the
policy and the performance--that we need
to incorporate how different people act
and how they resolve conflict. Is that what
this is for?
Hilary Feldstein: You could broaden this
to study local dispute resolution as
opposed to national rules but you could
change one of the parameters to see how it
interacts with the others.
Marianne Schmink: I don't have a clue
about how to get to this performance
issue. Karen Kraft (1995) wrote her


dissertation on Bolivian systems, but she
had trouble finding coherence from one
year or one household to the next. That's
very important if you start assuming that
there are rules.
Arun Agrawal: Maybe that there is no
pattern is the important point. If particular
patterns are important to the community,
what is happening to them?
Marianne Schmink: That's what Karen
was asking--are these communities just
hanging on to some normative rules or are
they abandoning them?


4.5 Theme 5. Communities.

4.5.1 Lessons from Working with Communities in Peru: Avecita Chicchdn.


Conservation International works in the
Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone in
southern Peru. In the Madre de Dios
department, there are several different
indigenous groups, third- generation
migrants, and more recent migrants. In the
upper Tambopata, there are Aymara and
Quechua-speaking people who have
migrated from the higher Andes. The
issues in this area are very relevant to our
discussions with migration and gender etc.
This is where Jane Collins and Michael
Painter worked (Bedoya, Collins and
Painter 1987; Collins 1988). There is a
slow process of migration. The
agricultural frontier has not expanded in 30
years. Most of these people are coffee
producers and they don't produce much
because of low prices and also don't
migrate much as a result.


In the core area of the reserve, there is
only limited seasonal human occupation
(tourism and seasonal indigenous
hunting). There is no permanent
settlement in the core. The core is about
900,000 hectares. The reserved zone is
roughly 1.5 million hectares.
There are several native communities in
the lower region. There are roughly 550
persons in one group, and 50 to 60 in
another. In Madre de Dios there were
many indigenous groups decimated
because of the rubber boom (castilla
elastica).
I wanted to point out that we have an
integrated approach to conservation in our
project. We call this approach
PRODESCOT.
We have different work areas: one is
saneamento territorial, which has three


MERGE










Marianne Schmink: Plus you'd also want
to look at the policy implications.
Jorge Recharte: I want to understand the
policy and the performance--that we need
to incorporate how different people act
and how they resolve conflict. Is that what
this is for?
Hilary Feldstein: You could broaden this
to study local dispute resolution as
opposed to national rules but you could
change one of the parameters to see how it
interacts with the others.
Marianne Schmink: I don't have a clue
about how to get to this performance
issue. Karen Kraft (1995) wrote her


dissertation on Bolivian systems, but she
had trouble finding coherence from one
year or one household to the next. That's
very important if you start assuming that
there are rules.
Arun Agrawal: Maybe that there is no
pattern is the important point. If particular
patterns are important to the community,
what is happening to them?
Marianne Schmink: That's what Karen
was asking--are these communities just
hanging on to some normative rules or are
they abandoning them?


4.5 Theme 5. Communities.

4.5.1 Lessons from Working with Communities in Peru: Avecita Chicchdn.


Conservation International works in the
Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone in
southern Peru. In the Madre de Dios
department, there are several different
indigenous groups, third- generation
migrants, and more recent migrants. In the
upper Tambopata, there are Aymara and
Quechua-speaking people who have
migrated from the higher Andes. The
issues in this area are very relevant to our
discussions with migration and gender etc.
This is where Jane Collins and Michael
Painter worked (Bedoya, Collins and
Painter 1987; Collins 1988). There is a
slow process of migration. The
agricultural frontier has not expanded in 30
years. Most of these people are coffee
producers and they don't produce much
because of low prices and also don't
migrate much as a result.


In the core area of the reserve, there is
only limited seasonal human occupation
(tourism and seasonal indigenous
hunting). There is no permanent
settlement in the core. The core is about
900,000 hectares. The reserved zone is
roughly 1.5 million hectares.
There are several native communities in
the lower region. There are roughly 550
persons in one group, and 50 to 60 in
another. In Madre de Dios there were
many indigenous groups decimated
because of the rubber boom (castilla
elastica).
I wanted to point out that we have an
integrated approach to conservation in our
project. We call this approach
PRODESCOT.
We have different work areas: one is
saneamento territorial, which has three


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


components. Another is titling for native
communities. Some have rights for
agriculture, others have rights is to extract
timber. We have various components in
the project, including PROGEMA, the
gender component. Our MERGE project
is part of this larger project. We're doing
training and follow-ups to the workshops
to learn what participants have learned and
how they've changed their activities.

Charo Lanao and Zoila Arredonda have
conducted several focus groups. First we
had a needs assessment last year, and then
a more focused needs assessment to
determine the demand for what we had to
offer as a service. Not just because people
want to make their own projects better,
but because people want to respond to the
demands of their own donors. They heard
we were doing gender workshops, and
they came and said, our funders want to
incorporate gender. Can you help us?

I have the report from the first workshop
for you to see. After that, we had our first
focus group, one with FADEMAD, and
another with a community in Tahuamanu,
and another with the San Juan community.
For thinking about documenting the


process, we have a report from a
management project for river turtle eggs.
At first they were working with men.
After the first workshop, they realized they
had to incorporate women. But they
couldn't because in the Esei Eja culture,
parents are permissive with children. And
when children want to eat something, they
are allowed to eat what they want. The
women had to bring the children if they
were working on the beaches, and the
children ate the turtle eggs.

The most important lessons for us:
To work through their legitimate
organizations. We cannot work with
farmers on an individual basis, so we must
work with the appropriate organization of
farmers. We also wanted to work with
those who can have the most powerful
impact on resources. We also worked
with FADEMAD because we wanted to
facilitate participation on the part of all
community members. Training is a key
component for us in doing conservation,
but it should be followed by the
elaboration of productive projects. Only in
that sense have we been able to make
conservation more valuable to them.


4.5.2 Lessons from Working with Communities in Peru: Richard Bodmer.


Our work is related to the question of
what is the relationship between biological
research and conservation? If the people
use natural resources, wildlife, etc. it is
very important to determine the
relationships between biology and the use


of the resource. I'll talk about how we've
dealt with the use of wildlife and the
conservation of wildlife species. If people
are overusing the resource, it means they
are violating the biological limitations of
the resource. We've used a comparative










density model to see what species decrease
in different areas of varying degrees of
hunting activity. We've also used a
production model to look at reproductivity
of animals in relation to hunting. Also,
we've used age-structure models, looking
at skulls and the differences in age
structures in persistently hunted and
slightly hunted sites, to look for indicators
of over hunting. The models then, are the
biological research we've used to lead to
management goals, which will then lead to
conservation.

We have found it important to work with
all family members. The men shoot
animals, but it doesn't work if we only talk
to men. Both men and women clean the
animal, and it's the women who cook the
animal and take care of the skulls. It is
important then to consider the differences.
In any type of participatory research, it's


key to work with both men and women,
even though it is the men who hunt (other
activities are involved).

We've been working with 3 different
models. Only one model concurs with the
families in what they can participate in: the
age-structure model. The first two are not
done in a participatory manner -- because
they can create conflicts between
observation for research and hunting for
subsistence. The age-structure model
looks at the skulls, and it's appropriate for
participation because it's a process which
the families go through anyway (because
they eat skull soup). It's very important,
then to consider what models we're using
to incorporate the issue of participation.
We see that changes in age-structure
concur with overexploitation, but we don't
know why (we have 3 hypotheses).


4.5.3 Discussion: Working with Communities.


Marianne Schmink: Avecita talked about
the importance of training and income
generating projects, and Richard talked
about the importance of engaging people
as experimenters in an area in which
they're interested as well.
Richard Bodmer: Yes, we had a
workshop, and many of the hunters came
for personal interest. I'm looking at these
hypotheses, and I have problems with a
few. Answering some of them might be
difficult.
Jon Dain: How much are people involved
in the process after they've collected the
skulls?


Richard Bodmer: As yet, we talk with
hunters about the findings, but we have
more to work on this in the future.
Jorge Recharte: Have you had experiences
of people who have looked at the skulls
and seen the connection with the
availability of wildlife?
RichardBodmer: The communities have
formed hunting and resource use
committees, but many don't want to get
involved in the meetings, even though
they're involved in collecting the data.
Peter Polshek: Have you looked at
income gained from commercial sale of








Conceptualization Workshop Report


involved in the meetings, even though
they're involved in collecting the data.
Peter Polshek: Have you looked at
income gained from commercial sale of
meat, and who's benefitting at the
household level?
RichardBodmer: We don't have that, but
we have figures related to relative


economics of productive/extractive
activities.
Connie Campbell: Is there any status
involved in the number of skulls people
contribute?
Richard Bodmer: We've made it very
clear that we don't want more or less.


4.5.4 Most Important Lessons Learned: Avecita Chicchdn.


Marianne Schmink: How's the best away
to engage a community? One way is to
use a model that is based on a process the
community is already interested in.
Richard Bodmer: Relating wildlife
research to broader community needs: it
didn't work because of expectations;
people begin to expect unrealizable goals
related to health, education, and other
issues. So focusing only on the wildlife
made it possible for us to fulfill our part of
the agreement with the community.
Cristina Espinosa: How do you involve
the community in the question?
RichardBodmer: I went to look at social
behavior and feeding ecology of ungulates.


I found out very quickly that I wasn't the
only one interested. Everyone was
interested, and that's what got me thinking
about the social side.
Anne Todd-Bockarie: The point is to find
the commonality that you can both work
together on, rather than create
expectations.
Connie Campbell: With agroforestry
projects in the extractive reserves, the
point is that it not be too much work for
them. We've seen establishment of
communal nurseries that require so much
labor, and participation is difficult to
maintain.


Lessons Learned

Must work with legitimate organizations
Must facilitate participation
Work with entire families
Training component through participation is key
Develop the right communication skills for participating in the definition of the goals
Models must be appropriate for the communities
Avoid creating expectations
Maintain continuity










Jon Dain: In a sense you (Richard) are
fortunate to have an interest in a resource
that was important to the community.
Peter Polshek: What about protecting
resources that are not of direct use to the
people? Is there room to engage
communities in non-utilitarian research?
Richard Bodmer: Conservation of
biodiversity is addressed in the project,
because game is linked to habitat.
Avecita Chicch6n: In Tambopata, we've
addressed the issue of equality of the
water. Many don't go upriver, but it is
important to them that the quality of the
river downstream is good. The audiences
are different upstream.
Karen Kainer: But certainly the focus of
the participants is not on research.
Jorge Recharte: Perhaps research should
be central to all training. If the purpose is


managing resources, who knows how best
to manage it?
KarenKainer: But the question returns to
the old issue: how many resources should
we invest in research of dynamics we
already understand?
Marianne Schmink: But we could
consider more participatory types of
research, or modifying the research
projects that are already going to occur. It
wouldn't divert resources.
Susan Poats: The idea is to get strong
correlation between your interest and that
of the community. Then, we talk about
negotiating participation.
Avecita Chicch6n: In Peru, we have a
government agency which provides funds
to organizations who contribute work to
projects, but it suffers because people
don't have time to participate.
Jon Dain: But then the flip side is not to
create dependency.


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


MERGE

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK




5.1 Discussion: Assumptions and Hypotheses.


Paquita Bath: Within MERGE, we clearly
have a lot of agendas. We talk about our
assumptions in joining this group. I have
a few: women are bearing the brunt of
environmental degradation; women and
men have different relations with natural
resources, which will have effects on
management plans.
Arun Agrawal: A third hypothesis:
women have less control over the
management of resources than men do.
Marianne Schmink: Many people don't
hold the same hypothesis that gender is
relevant to NRM. It is a working
hypothesis, unproven as yet.
Jon Dain: We need to remember why
we're making some of the assumptions.
There has been work done in agriculture,
so we're not just guessing, it's true. Does
the question of gender in conservation
become more pertinent when there is a
crisis?


Marianne Schmink: If you assume people
are part of conservation, then gender is
important. That's the assumption I make,
but that is an issue we need to address
before making the leap to others.
Avecita Chicch6n: We are also trying to
document the process. We're looking at
how women and men use resources
differently in Pampas del Heath.
Susan Poats: We don't want a concrete
formula. We want enough examples that
show that asking the gender question
makes a difference. Then, we can say the
question is important, and, depending on
the situation, the question will have
varying degrees of importance. Maybe
we're lacking cases. In Africa, people
focused on gender and agriculture before
they did so in Latin America. Perhaps it
has to do with the relative scarcity and
abundance of resources. At the
conference on property rights, we had very








Conceptualization Workshop Report


MERGE

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK




5.1 Discussion: Assumptions and Hypotheses.


Paquita Bath: Within MERGE, we clearly
have a lot of agendas. We talk about our
assumptions in joining this group. I have
a few: women are bearing the brunt of
environmental degradation; women and
men have different relations with natural
resources, which will have effects on
management plans.
Arun Agrawal: A third hypothesis:
women have less control over the
management of resources than men do.
Marianne Schmink: Many people don't
hold the same hypothesis that gender is
relevant to NRM. It is a working
hypothesis, unproven as yet.
Jon Dain: We need to remember why
we're making some of the assumptions.
There has been work done in agriculture,
so we're not just guessing, it's true. Does
the question of gender in conservation
become more pertinent when there is a
crisis?


Marianne Schmink: If you assume people
are part of conservation, then gender is
important. That's the assumption I make,
but that is an issue we need to address
before making the leap to others.
Avecita Chicch6n: We are also trying to
document the process. We're looking at
how women and men use resources
differently in Pampas del Heath.
Susan Poats: We don't want a concrete
formula. We want enough examples that
show that asking the gender question
makes a difference. Then, we can say the
question is important, and, depending on
the situation, the question will have
varying degrees of importance. Maybe
we're lacking cases. In Africa, people
focused on gender and agriculture before
they did so in Latin America. Perhaps it
has to do with the relative scarcity and
abundance of resources. At the
conference on property rights, we had very











few cases from Latin America; most were
from Asia and Africa.
Cristina Espinosa: In Latin America,
gender relations are more complex and


5.2 Five Initial Hypotheses.


5.3 Discussion: Five Initial Hypotheses.

Marianne Schmink: It seems we do have
something of a common agenda, and one
that's relatively communicable. Think
about the hypotheses we have now, and
consider how to change them, and how we
are addressing the issues and what more
we need to do.
Paquita Bath: From the practical
standpoint, the gender "doorknob"
metaphor is good. I have to be able to
prove the hypotheses, but instead of
talking about low income people, it's
useful to use gender.
Karen Kainer: You feel pressure to prove
or say women bear the brunt of
environmental degradation so your


subtle. We need to look at all the
indicators that can be incorporated in new
questions. For example, which women
and which men?


organization will want to work with
women, or why?
Paquita Bath: I'm finding it hard to use
the "doorknob" model, unless I can say
yes, there really is a significant reason I
can say NRM is related to women's and
men's roles.
RichardBodmer: What is the relationship
between the environment and low-income
people?
Susan Poats: Not all low-income people
are the same. One section might improve,
another may not.
Arun Agrawal: Even if people are living
close to environmental projects, they still
may not get the benefits of the project.


MERGE


HYPOTHESES

1. Low income women bear the brunt of environmental degradation.

2. Women and men have different relations to resources, and this affects management.

3. Women have less control and access to decision-making over natural resources.

4. Projects that incorporate gender analysis are more successful (equity and conservation).

5. Projects that proactively improve women's status as resource managers are more
successful.











few cases from Latin America; most were
from Asia and Africa.
Cristina Espinosa: In Latin America,
gender relations are more complex and


5.2 Five Initial Hypotheses.


5.3 Discussion: Five Initial Hypotheses.

Marianne Schmink: It seems we do have
something of a common agenda, and one
that's relatively communicable. Think
about the hypotheses we have now, and
consider how to change them, and how we
are addressing the issues and what more
we need to do.
Paquita Bath: From the practical
standpoint, the gender "doorknob"
metaphor is good. I have to be able to
prove the hypotheses, but instead of
talking about low income people, it's
useful to use gender.
Karen Kainer: You feel pressure to prove
or say women bear the brunt of
environmental degradation so your


subtle. We need to look at all the
indicators that can be incorporated in new
questions. For example, which women
and which men?


organization will want to work with
women, or why?
Paquita Bath: I'm finding it hard to use
the "doorknob" model, unless I can say
yes, there really is a significant reason I
can say NRM is related to women's and
men's roles.
RichardBodmer: What is the relationship
between the environment and low-income
people?
Susan Poats: Not all low-income people
are the same. One section might improve,
another may not.
Arun Agrawal: Even if people are living
close to environmental projects, they still
may not get the benefits of the project.


MERGE


HYPOTHESES

1. Low income women bear the brunt of environmental degradation.

2. Women and men have different relations to resources, and this affects management.

3. Women have less control and access to decision-making over natural resources.

4. Projects that incorporate gender analysis are more successful (equity and conservation).

5. Projects that proactively improve women's status as resource managers are more
successful.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


The benefits have gone to elites, the
government, or others.
Jon Dain: Projects and environmental
protection may not protect poor people.
But the way you do the project has a huge
impact. If a fence is simply put up, there
may be no' benefits. But if it's a
participatory approach, perhaps there is a
change, and they'll gain benefits from the
project. In order to do that, you need to
understand gender issues to get to the
right people. We need to be careful not to
oversimplify.

Peter Polshek: Women and men have
different relationships to some resources?
Arun Agrawal: To most resources...
Jorge Recharte: Women have more
access to resources than men...
Arun Agrawal: But not over decision-
making ...
Susan Poats: We don't want to generalize
about all women...
Arun Agrawal: We can think of very
specific, but very few cases where women
do not bear the brunt... but we're talking
about poor women, women in urban areas,
in developing countries, much more than
women in developed countries. There is a
restriction to the universe of the
hypothesis.
Hilary Feldstein: I don't mind being
challenging in the hypothesis and saying
women have less control, because it forces
us to examine it.
Susan Poats: I would like to focus on
access and control by gender, rather than
putting women up front. Perhaps, "access
and control to decision-making over
natural resources is differentiated by
gender." I'm thinking about how I'm going


to operationalize the teaching and the
testing of this hypothesis.

Marianne Schmink: Should we change
"bearing the brunt" to "benefit to different
degrees" (in hypothesis No.1)?
Peter Polshek: Do we need to be more
specific about what we mean by benefits?
AnneTodd-Bockarie: More than benefits,
we could talk about decision-making
power.
Jorge Recharte: If we leave benefits, it's
more open, it could be economic, spiritual,
etc.
RichardBodmer: The benefits themselves
have to come from conservation.
Jon Dain: We also want to talk about
incorporating people into the management
itself.

Richard Bodmer: If we're focusing on
degradation, what happens when you do
conservation, does it not affect low-
income people?
Arun Agrawal: So, we talk about
environmental change rather than
degradation. Environmental change
differentially affects people depending on
their wealth, gender, etc.
Avecita Chicchdn: "Environmental
change" is very broad, and maybe we
should focus on something more specific.
Richard Bodmer: It should be
"conservation projects" (not just
"projects") that incorporate gender are
more "successful".
Peter Hildebrand: Have we excluded
agriculture in our discussion of resource
management, because the word
conservation connotes protected areas.
HilaryFeldstein: Maybe we could have a
glossary that defines our terms.










Peter Polshek: Conservation does not
exclude preservation areas.




5.4 Two Additional Hypotheses on Trainih


5.5 Discussion: Training Hypotheses.

Hilary Feldstein: MERGE is more than
gender, it's also training and participation.
Arun Agrawal: The training hypothesis
seems wishy-washy. Who would contend
with it?
Susan Poats: The partnership sharing
strategy of training provides feedback that
changes our underlying assumptions.
Richard Bodmer: But, if they're
hypotheses, they have to be tested through
research.
Susan Poats: We're using training as an
analytical strategy. It's a different kind of
training.
Connie Campbell: Maybe we could be
bolder and say training is a necessary
strategy for incorporating gender into
conservation, or something like that delves
more into our other hypotheses.


Richard Bodmer: Conservation is
maintenance of biodiversity on a landscape
scale.


Jon Dain: We want to say training is a
feedback mechanism.
Jorge Recharte: Knowledge and the
perception of the world affects how
different actors relate to resources.
Avecita Chicch6n: I think training should
be a whole separate discussion because
this is training for whom or for what? I
think training is a tool to do better
conservation projects. And then we have
other ideas about training, but I'm not sure
we should combine them.
Lisette Staal: Yes, maybe there is an
underlying conceptual base that is apart
from our training as a strategy? Or is that
separating it too much?
Paquita Bath: This is great because we
started off with personal assumptions and
now we're trying to come up with
institutional assumptions we can agree on.


MERGE


HYPOTHESES

6. Training as a strategy helps explore the issues with different audiences

7. Training is a necessary, effective part of a strategy for incorporating gender into natural
resource management (NRM).










Peter Polshek: Conservation does not
exclude preservation areas.




5.4 Two Additional Hypotheses on Trainih


5.5 Discussion: Training Hypotheses.

Hilary Feldstein: MERGE is more than
gender, it's also training and participation.
Arun Agrawal: The training hypothesis
seems wishy-washy. Who would contend
with it?
Susan Poats: The partnership sharing
strategy of training provides feedback that
changes our underlying assumptions.
Richard Bodmer: But, if they're
hypotheses, they have to be tested through
research.
Susan Poats: We're using training as an
analytical strategy. It's a different kind of
training.
Connie Campbell: Maybe we could be
bolder and say training is a necessary
strategy for incorporating gender into
conservation, or something like that delves
more into our other hypotheses.


Richard Bodmer: Conservation is
maintenance of biodiversity on a landscape
scale.


Jon Dain: We want to say training is a
feedback mechanism.
Jorge Recharte: Knowledge and the
perception of the world affects how
different actors relate to resources.
Avecita Chicch6n: I think training should
be a whole separate discussion because
this is training for whom or for what? I
think training is a tool to do better
conservation projects. And then we have
other ideas about training, but I'm not sure
we should combine them.
Lisette Staal: Yes, maybe there is an
underlying conceptual base that is apart
from our training as a strategy? Or is that
separating it too much?
Paquita Bath: This is great because we
started off with personal assumptions and
now we're trying to come up with
institutional assumptions we can agree on.


MERGE


HYPOTHESES

6. Training as a strategy helps explore the issues with different audiences

7. Training is a necessary, effective part of a strategy for incorporating gender into natural
resource management (NRM).








Conceptualization Workshop Report


5.6 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 1.


5.7 Discussion: Draft Conceptual Framework (Version 1).


Marianne Schmink: Let's think about
whether the hypotheses we've produced
are totally useless now. If so, how would
we restate them to make them better?
And, are we addressing the right
questions, and if not, how can we begin to
try to answer them through MERGE
activities? I personally am interested in
coming out of this workshop with


hypotheses for research. We should ask:
What do we know? How well do we
know it? How well are we able to show
what we know? What are the frontiers of
our own thinking to launch further
research? Today let's focus less on
terminology and more on the concepts,
knowing we'll have opportunities to meet
in the future. In the meantime, as we go


HYPOTHESES

1. Biological conservation is more successful in the long-run if local people play an active
role and benefit from conservation through natural resource management.

2. Effective resource management for conservation requires negotiation among multiple,
often conflicting, groups of stakeholders.

3. Women and men have different relations to specific resources, and this affects use and
conservation.

4. Access and control to decision-making over natural resources is differentiated by
gender.

5. Environmental change affects people differently depending on their wealth, gender, etc.

6. Conservation insights that incorporate insights from gender analysis are more
successful and equitable.

7. Projects that proactively empower women as resource managers are more successful.

8. Training as a strategy helps explore the issues with different audiences

9. Training is a necessary, effective part of a strategy for incorporating gender into natural
resource management (NRM).








Conceptualization Workshop Report


5.6 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 1.


5.7 Discussion: Draft Conceptual Framework (Version 1).


Marianne Schmink: Let's think about
whether the hypotheses we've produced
are totally useless now. If so, how would
we restate them to make them better?
And, are we addressing the right
questions, and if not, how can we begin to
try to answer them through MERGE
activities? I personally am interested in
coming out of this workshop with


hypotheses for research. We should ask:
What do we know? How well do we
know it? How well are we able to show
what we know? What are the frontiers of
our own thinking to launch further
research? Today let's focus less on
terminology and more on the concepts,
knowing we'll have opportunities to meet
in the future. In the meantime, as we go


HYPOTHESES

1. Biological conservation is more successful in the long-run if local people play an active
role and benefit from conservation through natural resource management.

2. Effective resource management for conservation requires negotiation among multiple,
often conflicting, groups of stakeholders.

3. Women and men have different relations to specific resources, and this affects use and
conservation.

4. Access and control to decision-making over natural resources is differentiated by
gender.

5. Environmental change affects people differently depending on their wealth, gender, etc.

6. Conservation insights that incorporate insights from gender analysis are more
successful and equitable.

7. Projects that proactively empower women as resource managers are more successful.

8. Training as a strategy helps explore the issues with different audiences

9. Training is a necessary, effective part of a strategy for incorporating gender into natural
resource management (NRM).










along today, we can make note of the
terms we want to define more clearly, such
as "conservation" and "gender".

Peter Hildebrand: Hypotheses and
assumptions are very different.
Hilary Feldstein: We may have watered
these down, in trying to make them
correct. Maybe we could have
assumptions, and then more challenging
hypotheses.


Marianne Schmink: They may all be
assumptions for us, but they may not be
assumptions for others.
Marianne Schmink: Are we comfortable
with it, what is the evidence we have, do
we have examples in our own cases, what
might some follow-up hypotheses be?
Richard Bodmer: In the evidence
question, we'll find whether they are
assumptions or hypotheses.


Hypothesis No. 1: Biological conservation is more successful in the long-run if local people
play an active role and benefit from conservation through natural resource management.


Avecita Chicch6n: It's difficult to have
evidence for the long-run.
Richard Bodmer: But in the short-run,
there are costs that don't necessarily
benefit local people.
Avecita Chicch6n: So it's a hypothesis.
Susan Poats: Is it necessarily only in the
long-run?
Marianne Schmink: More successful
means what?
Peter Polshek: In TNC, they might think
in 50 year chunks. A reduced rate or loss
of species...
RichardBodmer: Or a change in a trend.
Karen Kainer: Diversity levels are
maintained.
Avecita Chicch6n: The natural area
stabilizes the agrarian frontier.
Susan Poats: I thought we said that in
order for people to participate, benefits
much be generated over the short run.


Avecita Chicch6n: In Tambopata for
example, they are doing more diverse
agriculture in their plots, they have a
greater political voice, and there are other
short-term benefits.
Susan Poats: In Ecuador, the NGO is
promoting trout fishing which provides
immediate offtake income for people, as an
alternative for moving into the forest. It's
the kind of thing donors are looking for.
Avecita Chicch6n: Is "local people" low
income people only?
Jon Dain: Local people includes
partnerships...
Marianne Schmink: It could be the
ranchers who are doing private gator
farming, whatever. We have cases people
are already citing to show benefits for the
short-term.
Arun Agrawal: The kinds of assumptions
MERGE makes don't have to be
universally accepted. I would prefer


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


hypotheses to be somewhat bold, even if
we can't prove them.
Peter Polshek: Instead of "is more
successful" why not "will be successful"


Marianne Schmink: Do we want to make
this stronger by saying different, but
conflictive?
Karen Kainer: The case studies on
conservation and gender differences are
trying to prove this.
Susan Poats: For the general population,
it's still not a given.
Sandra Russo: To make it bolder, we
could say women don't have as much
access...
Arun Agrawal: Hypotheses 4 and 5 might
be the places to be bolder.
Marianne Schmink: But we still want to
prove No. 3 in our cases, particularly the
issue of whether the different relations
affect conservation.
Lisette Staal: Should we say "natural
resources" rather than just resources?
Karen Kainer: I want to make sure that
people are thinking about biodiversity
conservation.
Arun Agrawal: Perhaps the first part
could be a true statement. Then, "Without
understanding these specific relations, we
cannot. .."
Marianne Schmink: Maybe it's more than
understanding, but acting on,
incorporating the understanding.


ArunAgrawal: Why don't we say "will be
successful only if local people are
involved," and that's a challenge.


Suely Anderson: "Understanding and
considering specific gender relationships at
the community level can be crucial to the
success of projects focusing on
conservation and natural resource
management."
Richard Bodmer: I like that because
instead of looking at men and women, it
talks about looking at the relationships
between men and women.
Hilary Feldstein: Number 3 has to do
with the use of the resource, and Suely's
statement is that men and women have
relations that affect resources. In the first
case, we wouldn't be focusing on power,
patriarchy, etc.; rather we'd be focusing on
the information we gain from knowing
different relations men and women have
with resources.
RichardBodmer: Suely's statement would
be easier to prove, because it's a dynamic
process. It's hard to look at different
relationships with resources.
Hilary Feldstein: Maybe then we should
talk about roles rather than specific
relations with resources.
Peter Polshek: Women and men have
different goals with regard to resources?


Hypothesis No. 3: Women and men have different relations to specific resources, and this
affects use and conservation.













Susan Poats: They are two separate
things. There are different roles. Because
it is confusing, all the more reason to
examine it, try to prove its significance.
There are gender relationships at the
community level, and any conservation
strategy will have to look at all kinds of
relationships at the community level.
Arun Agrawal: There are different patterns
of use and different patterns of control.


Arun Agrawal: Do we want to say
women, and create a more challenging
hypothesis that can be proved?
Avecita Chicch6n:. If we said men have
less control over resources, then we'd be
more provocative. I'm worried about
losing the gender.
Sandra Russo: I remember a book that
showed men were disadvantaged. We
need to recognize the differences, and
work from there.
Marianne Schmink. When we start talking
about women rather than gender, we need
to specify what- kind of women, low
income, urban/rural, etc. Maybe we could
combine this with the previous hypothesis.


That's why we need to keep 3 and 4
separate.
Jorge Recharte: Women and men relate
differently to resources. That way we
wouldn't say there are men's resources and
women's resources.
Marianne Schmink. So, this is primarily
an assumption, but it's one we have to
document through our cases.


Lisette Staal: Arun talked yesterday about
the rights to use something and the rights
to make decisions about the use of
resources are different. If we collapse 3
and 4, we lose that distinction.
Peter Hildebrand: By saying "relate to"
we are referring to use, access, and
control.
Marianne Schminkc Use of, access to, and
control of natural resources is
differentiated by gender, age, etc. These
differences must be considered for
successful conservation. (We should re-
word this to make it a hypothesis, rather
than a recommendation.)


MERGE


Hypothesis No. 4: Access and control to decision-making over natural resources is
differentiated by gender.








Conceptualization Workshop Report




Hypothesis No 8. Training as a strategy helps explore the issues with different audiences

Hypothesis No 9. Training is a necessary, effective part of a strategy for incorporating gender
into natural resource management (NRM).


Lisette Staal: Evaluation implies drawing
from what the stakeholder said in pre- and
post-training experiences, and
incorporating the comments into new
initiatives.
Marianne Schmink: Do we want to add
anything? Something on extension,
technical assistance, institutional
partnerships that will permit continuity in
activities beyond the training?
Lisette Staal: It isn't just the training; it's
being able to turn the training into
something productive.
Avecita Chicch6n: It's not the training,
but what you get out of it, what you do
with the training. One side of the learning
process is what the trainers get out of it;
another side is what the trainees get out of
it.
RichardBodmer: We should talk about a
continued presence.
Avecita Chicch6n: In Spanish we say
acompafiamiento.
Lisette Staal: If we go back to the original
proposal for MERGE: we talk about not
just training, but also time for technical
assistance or follow-up on the empirical
experience of what's happening.


Hilary Feldstein: Yes, training by itself
doesn't count. I, for one, would reject the
hypothesis on training.
Arun Agrawal: Let's say integrating the
participation of stakeholder audiences..
.rather than integrating training.
Avecita Chicch6n: It's gender focused
training that occurs in a not necessarily
gender-focused project.
Peter Polshek: Maybe we could say
integration of stakeholder analysis, etc.
will result in successful biological
conservation.
Marianne Schmink: This is what we have:
Successful conservation through NRM
initiatives requires the participation of
stakeholder audiences in
analytical/evaluative training, combined
with institutional partnerships to continue
in extension, research, etc.
Susan Poats: Successful conservation
through gender-focused training requires
stakeholder participation And then, follow
it up with training, institutional
partnerships, etc. It would be more than
one hypotheses.
Peter Polshek: We could think of the
training as in the short run, and follow up
as a long run.








MERGE


5.8 Discussion: Gender.


Avecita Chicch6n: We need to talk about
gender, maybe take a few minutes to see if
we understand the same thing.
Marianne Schmink: My understanding of
gender is that other social variables are
always relevant. Gender always includes
looking at other characteristics of people.
Hilary Feldstein: We need to be sure
gender isn't just men and women. But
when we say gender, wealth, etc., the
other social variables, most people would
agree too, but what is interesting about
MERGE is specific to gender.
Cristina Espinosa: Does gender include
everything, including migration, ethnicity,
etc.?
Richard Bodmer: As a biologist, gender
implies simply male and female.
Hilary Feldstein: The purpose is to
understand why gender makes a difference
in a particular situation. One
differentiation could be migrants and
indigenous. If we look at gender, then we
see there are women in the different
groups within the social variables of a
particular locality.
Jorge Recharte: We are not excluding
other social variables, we're only focusing
on gender.
Jon Dain: Hilary's example brings up the
problem: we say women, rather than
gender, no matter our definition.
Karen Kainer: With the audience we are
dealing with, we need to talk about men
and women, not just women.


Lisette Staal: Karen, when you say stick
to "gender, are you saying include age,
wealth, etc.?
Karen Kainer: No, but what you're trying
to address is the differences between men
and women in different contexts.
Jon Dain: Are we trying to target women
specifically in MERGE?
Marianne Schmink: Is MERGE
concerned with empowering women?
Jon Dain: MERGE is trying to empower
people.
CristinaEspinosa: It depends. If women
are in power, then no...
Suely Anderson: In Brazil, we had to
emphasize women because they were in a
disadvantaged situation. The tendency is
to move away from that, but we find in
many cases that we do have to focus on
women.
Karen Kainer: MERGE is trying to
improve conservation-efforts, and in doing
that we have to work with people, and in
different cases, women and men are more
important.
Marianne Schmink: What if we add
disadvantaged groups?
Lisette Staal: We haven't dealt with
communities. What if we said, empower
"communities" rather than women?
ArunAgrawal: If we say community, then
we've lost gender. In community, some
people will be missed.









Conceptualization Workshop Report


Gender: Socially constructed differences and relations between men and women that vary by
situation and context.




5.9 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 2 (October, 1995).



ASSUMPTIONS
1. Conservation will be successful in the long run if local people play an active role and
benefit from conservation through natural resource management.

2. Resource management for conservation involves direct or indirect negotiation among
multiple, often conflicting, groups of stakeholders.

3. Use of, access to, control of and impact on natural resources are differentiated by gender.
gender differentiates goals and values among user groups.

4. Ecological change differentially affects people depending on their gender.


HYPOTHESES

5. Conservation initiatives that incorporate insights from gender analysis to empower local
groups will be successful and equitable.

6. Successful conservation initiatives require the participation of stakeholder audiences in
gender-focused, analytical/evaluative training.

7. Conservation will be successful in the long run if stakeholder training is combined with
strategies for institutional change and partnership to provide continuity in extension,
research, technical assistance and other participatory activities with local communities.


DEFINITIONS

Conservation refers to the long-term maintenance of biodiversity on a landscape scale, including
multiple uses, not limited to preservation.

Gender refers to socially constructed differences and relations between men and women that vary
by situation and context. A focus on gender serves to open the door for attention to other,
interrelated social variables.









MERGE


5.10 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 3 (February, 1996).


DEFINITIONS

Conservation refers to the long-term maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity through
management of multiple forms of resource use and preservation.

Gender refers to socially constructed differences and relations between men and women that
vary by situation and context. A focus on gender serves to open the door for attention to other,
interrelated social variables.


PROPOSITIONS

1. Resource management for conservation involves direct or indirect negotiation among
multiple, often conflicting, groups of stakeholders with different levels of power and
resources.

2. Participation by local communities is necessary (but not sufficient) to achieve
conservation with social justice.

3. Gender differentiates use of access to, control of and impact on, and attitudes towards
natural resources, as well as the impact of ecological change.

4. Conservation initiatives that incorporate insights from gender analysis to empower
local groups will be successful and equitable.

5. Successful conservation initiatives require the participation of stakeholder audiences
in gender-focused, analytical/evaluative training.

6. Conservation will be successful in the long run if stakeholder training is combined with
strategies for institutional change and partnership to provide continuity in extension,
research, technical assistance and other participatory activities with local communities.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


5.11 MERGE Conceptual Framework: Version 4 (May, 1996).


DEFINITIONS

Conservation refers to the long-term maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity through
management of multiple forms of resource use and preservation of nature.

Gender refers to socially constructed differences and relations between men and women that
vary by situation and context. A focus on gender serves to open the door for attention to other,
interrelated social variables.

PROPOSITIONS

1. The potential for community-based conservation is conditioned by historical,
ecological, socioeconomic and political factors at diverse scales.

2. Resource management for conservation involves direct or indirect negotiation among
multiple, groups of stakeholders with different levels of power and resources, whose
interests may be complementary and/or in conflict.

3. Participation by local communities is a necessary element to achieve conservation with
social equity.

4. Gender relations differentiate people's connections with natural resources and
ecological systems, including knowledge of, use of, access to, control of, and impact
on natural resources, and attitudes towards resources and conservation.

5. Conservation initiatives that use a gender focus to empower local groups will be more
sustainable and equitable.

6. Stakeholder participation in gender-focused learning processes that integrate
experiential learning and analytical thinking improves the sustainability of conservation
initiatives.

7. Stakeholder training will contribute to conservation success in the long run if it is part
of a broader strategy for institutional change and partnership that provides continuity
in research, exchange, technical assistance and other participatory activities with local
communities.








MERGE


EVALUATION


6.1 What was most useful about the workshop?


Paquita Bath: The most useful part for
me was the work on the
assumptions/hypothesis. I think this was
critical for getting them out on the table
and helping us define next steps in our
research and implementation. This was a
big advance for us. I also used the same
approach of getting at conceptual
assumptions for some other work here
upon my return which has also been useful.
Finally, I am delighted with the support for
the gender primer and feel that I can now
move forward with a specific product that
generated a positive response and will be
much stronger thanks to Susan's
involvement.

Suely Anderson: For me, the most useful
thing about the workshop was to work on
the design of MERGE's conceptual
framework, and at the end to have a draft
document that can continually be modified
and adapted to best reflect what MERGE
is about. The fact that MERGE's
conceptual framework is expressed in
terms of assumptions and hypotheses that


can be tested, discussed, used and referred
to in a variety of situations and with a
variety of audiences is exciting and new.
I find it clever. I also considered the
whole process to get the conceptual
framework done very useful, because it
brought together extremely thoughtful and
educated people from different
backgrounds, who made invaluable
contributions to the discussions. It was
one of my few experiences of that sort,
and I learned a great deal from it. Besides,
I feel like I developed a much better
understanding about MERGE, which has
been useful already on some occasions,
such as when preparing a draft for the
MERGE/FVA case study.

Avecita Chicch6n: The opportunity to
take a distance from our own projects to
discuss concepts that are intrinsic to our
work and organize the discussion in terms
of a framework of analysis.

Jorge Recharte: The workshop was useful
in several ways. First of all, as an








MERGE


EVALUATION


6.1 What was most useful about the workshop?


Paquita Bath: The most useful part for
me was the work on the
assumptions/hypothesis. I think this was
critical for getting them out on the table
and helping us define next steps in our
research and implementation. This was a
big advance for us. I also used the same
approach of getting at conceptual
assumptions for some other work here
upon my return which has also been useful.
Finally, I am delighted with the support for
the gender primer and feel that I can now
move forward with a specific product that
generated a positive response and will be
much stronger thanks to Susan's
involvement.

Suely Anderson: For me, the most useful
thing about the workshop was to work on
the design of MERGE's conceptual
framework, and at the end to have a draft
document that can continually be modified
and adapted to best reflect what MERGE
is about. The fact that MERGE's
conceptual framework is expressed in
terms of assumptions and hypotheses that


can be tested, discussed, used and referred
to in a variety of situations and with a
variety of audiences is exciting and new.
I find it clever. I also considered the
whole process to get the conceptual
framework done very useful, because it
brought together extremely thoughtful and
educated people from different
backgrounds, who made invaluable
contributions to the discussions. It was
one of my few experiences of that sort,
and I learned a great deal from it. Besides,
I feel like I developed a much better
understanding about MERGE, which has
been useful already on some occasions,
such as when preparing a draft for the
MERGE/FVA case study.

Avecita Chicch6n: The opportunity to
take a distance from our own projects to
discuss concepts that are intrinsic to our
work and organize the discussion in terms
of a framework of analysis.

Jorge Recharte: The workshop was useful
in several ways. First of all, as an








Conceptualization Workshop Report


opportunity to give more substance to the
MERGE concept. In the workshop I saw
MERGE playing the function of a meeting
place for a group of people interested in
learning from each other. The workshop
helped me see MERGE as a reality.
Second, by introducing a research agenda,
it added value to the training/applied
activities which are the focus of our work
in the MacArthur funded projects. Third, I
personally benefited from the excellent
ideas and literature exchanged during the
workshop. Thanks to the workshop I was
able to gain a better understanding of the
interests of my other MERGE colleagues.
Now I feel that I belong to a group of
colleagues who share a set of research
questions and interests and with whom I
can communicate on these issues.

Susan Poats: There were a number of
useful things about the workshop. Here is
a list of the top ones on my list.
1. The subject matter itself. Focusing
as we did on the conceptual issues will
take us way ahead on this for future work.
2. The way the pre-conference
questions served to orient the discussion.
Very nice adaptation of DELPHI
technique.
3. The timing. I think it was perfect
timing to wait until we had a bit of field
experience and collaboration experience to
hold this workshop. This gave us the nice
field examples to play with as we hashed
over the principles, assumptions and
hypotheses.
4. The group. It was perfect. Good
balance of personalities, experience, and


areas of expertise. I was often amazed to
realize that we were 20 people, and yet we
coordinated and discussed as if we were 4
or 5. Harmony reigned even though we
discussed issues where we were not in
agreement.
5. The prepared presentations,
especially Sandra's, were very useful to
delve into certain topics.
6. The supporting people. The
logistics, location and food worked great.
We all appreciate the rapid entry fingers of
Amanda and her team. The report writing
should move ahead quickly with so much
already inputted.

Sandra Russo: That we began to think
about research issues based on what we've
learned from being involved in training at
the community level. This, I think, will
make the research results more real world,
and hence, more useful to the various
stakeholders.

Marianne Schmink: Having the
opportunity to pool our collective
experiences with MERGE activities to
think about their conceptual implications
and draw them together into a common
framework.

Hilary Feldstein: The varied points of
view as stakeholders or from disciplinary
perspectives. The adequate amount of
time and openness of the discussion was
conducive to real progress. Obviously the
most salient result was the progress on the
conceptual framework.








MERGE


6.2 Which questions or issues still need further discussion and/or clarification?


Paquita Bath: In terms of next steps,
while I think the assumptions brought us a
long way we are still not ready to bring
that down to specifics on how to test the
hypothesis through a more detailed
research agendafimplementation role at the
site level. I think a lot more work can be
done here. I also was particularly struck
(as were many) by gender as a social
variable linked to the "doorknob" image, I
think that is a strong metaphor for this
program.

Suely Anderson: In my opinion, I'd like to
see one working definition of what is
gender analysis for MERGE, as we did for
gender and conservation. I'd like to see
MERGE giving continuity to the task of
trying to define its basic concepts. The
concept of natural resource management is
not very clear either, depending on the
situation. Therefore, what is meant by
"conservation through resource
management", as stated in the first
assumption, could require further
discussion and clarification, in my opinion.
When I translated MERGE's framework
into Portuguese, I then realized that some
of these concepts are not very easily
translated. Avecita raised this issue of
difficulty of translation of the word
"landscape", during the workshop. How
should we deal with this?

Avecita Chicch6n: The question of what
is meant by "local communities". In areas
like Madre de Dios, a community of
migrants has a different definition than a
community of indigenous people.


Therefore, empowerment of local groups
has different meanings and needs to be
defined.

Jorge Recharte: Gender perspective/
inclusion and empowerment of women.
This was to me the one big issue that still
requires work. Clarifying this question
would benefit the training workshops in
Latin America because this is an issue that
concerns people who work with rural
communities and have a commitment to
native cultures, i.e., they ask if gender
analysis is not a way to change roles of
women and men and to interfere with local
cultures.
My own position is that cultures that have
vitality in these modern times are those
that are able to change and adapt to the
circumstances of the time. Therefore, I
see no problem in seeing gender analysis as
a tool for change, a tool that both external
agents and local communities could use. I
can say this easily but have no idea of how
this potential role of gender analysis could
be implemented in such a way that changes
in roles keep "authentic", inspired in the
best of local values, traditions, history,
skills, etc. I imagine that this is a very
obvious issue and that there are tons of
literature discussing this issues. Could you
recommend good readings on this issues?
Methodologies for case studies. I don't
think the methodology part is a major
problem. What we still lack is some
collective Outline for Case Studies, so that
cases reported in the three countries are
comparable. Why don't we work on this
Outline? If every body agrees we can do








Conceptualization Workshop Report


it through the e-mail "lista de interest en
genero y manejo de recursos naturales"
that Susan and I are putting together.
How to explore, operationalize the
hypothesis. Future steps in MERGE.

Susan Poats: I still think we could benefit
by more exploration on the population
issues. I think we are still fuzzy on some
of the connecting points.
I would have liked to have a lot more time
to look at the materials assembled by
MERGE. Too fast to have a good look.

Sandra Russo: We need to continue to
work towards a conceptual framework
which I'm beginning to think might not be
as easily stated as it was for "gender and
agriculture". In fact, we might have to
have more than one conceptual
framework, reflecting the diversity,
difference, and complexity of the
environments and beings we work with.

Marianne Schmink: The framework still
needs much discussion and elaboration in
different ways for different purposes. We
are beginning to define a unique and
specific "MERGE" perspective that could
be a real contribution. We also need to
define a strategy for linking research to
training and field project work in order to
further the MERGE agenda as outlined in
the framework.

Hilary Feldstein: This is a new item. I
have been reengaged by discussions of the
role of social capital in development which
is appearing in a number of venues.
Francis Fukiyama's recent book on Trust


discusses this in the context of culture and
trust as important explanatory variables
beyond economic assessment. He recently
presented a seminar on this at the World
Bank. His book, which he summarized
very briefly and I am now beginning to
read, talks about different structures
(though he doesn't express it that way) of
trust and how they help shape the
modalities of economic growth. As we
discussed at the seminar, there are a
number of stakeholders and a need for
negotiation and conflict resolution. But it
might be helpful to add into that the
concept of 'trust lines' as well as fault lines
between and among stakeholders. Much
of the social capital discussion has focused
on -- we know what it is, how can we
make it happen. But a second approach
which is at least implicit in Fukiyama's
work is how do we recognize it and the
form it takes as a basis for development
interventions. As I read the draft
framework, I was struck again by 'gender'
standing alone and the uneasy dilemma
between gender and the weight of other
social variables. You caught some of this
in the 'definitions'. Anyway I think trust,
social capital ideas are among the other
social variables which might be considered.
More on the framework below. While we
made reference to conflict resolution and
negotiation, we didn't go very far in
discussing how that enters the picture.
Are there already examples of one or the
other in the sites you are working with so
far? That seems to me the most dicey part
of this business, and also where gender
might easily be bargained out.








MERGE


6.3 Feedback on the MERGE Framework (Version 2).


Paquita Bath: I like the reworking you
did on the framework and I'm comfortable
with the definitions.

Suely Anderson (and Anthony Anderson):
1. The numbering on the hypotheses
should be 1, 2, 3.
2. Hypothesis No.1 could read like
this: Insights from gender analysis
contribute to the success of conservation
initiatives (The issue of empowerment is
contemplated already by Hypothesis No.2,
in the participation).
3. Hypothesis No. 2 could read like
this: Successful conservation initiatives
require the participation of stakeholder
audiences in gender-focused training (The
words analytical/evaluative are confusing
and meaningless for an outsider).

Avecita Chicch6n: This is the one of the
most important products of the workshop.
It was interesting to see how the initial
statements put forth by Marianne triggered
a discussion that helped arrive to this
product. I only have a few small
comments: I see the framework as a set of
true reasonably testable/ verifiable
statements' that take particular forms
under different local conditions. In that
sense, its usefulness lies in the fact that
they are concise statements that gather the
common threads that explain the
relationships among conservation, local
participation, resource use and gender.
The "how" question is partially answered
through "training" (hypothesis No. 6).
This needs to be analyzed more thoroughly
by expanding the discussion on hypothesis
No.7. I agree with the wording


"ecological" rather than "environmental"
change (Assumption No.4) because the
emphasis shifts the analysis from 'brown'
to green issues.

Susan Poats: In re-reading the
assumptions and hypotheses, I wonder if
we couldn't go back to calling them all
hypotheses? They seem to read that way
to me. I think another area we need to
explore is to systematically examine just
how one would go about in the field to
prove or disprove our hypotheses.

Jorge Recharte: Assumptions:
1. Conservation will be successful in
the long run if local people play an active
role and benefit from conservation through
natural resource management.
Comments:
1.a. This has to remain as an
assumption for MERGE since
quantification of any sort on this issue is
beyond MERGE's present life time.
However, I would like to exchange with
MERGE colleagues examples, published
or unpublished, from any where in the
world, that show this to be the case.
Examples showing different types of
benefits, roles, etc.
MERGE might be interested in the results
of a study that a FLACSO-(Susan, Jorge,
Jean Jacque Decoste, Flica Barclay and
Cecilia Scurrah)-TNC (Barbara Dugelby,
Bill Ulfelder) team will conduct in the
Cayambe Coca reserve looking at this
assumption. We'll keep MERGE posted
on products coming out of this study.
2. Resource management for
conservation involves direct or indirect








Conceptualization Workshop Report


negotiation among multiple, often
conflicting, groups of stakeholders.
Comments:
2.a. I like this assumption because it
forces us to use a "political" approach to
analysis of conservation. It is an
assumption that I think I would use
regularly in any situation and I would be
really surprised if I find a situation in
which there were no conflicting interests
and different stakeholders around any
renewable natural resource.
3. Use of, access to, control of and
impact on natural resources are
differentiated by gender.
3.a. As in assumption 1 I would benefit
greatly from exchanging examples within
MERGE, specially fresh ones from the
field, showing the diversity of
circumstances affecting this assumption.
4. Ecological change differentially
affects people depending on their gender.
4.a. Like in No.3.
Hypotheses:
5. Conservation initiatives that
incorporate insights from gender analysis
to empower local groups will be successful
and equitable.
Comments:
5.a. How can we test the positive
(=successful + equitable) relationship
proposed in this hypothesis between
conservation and empowerment? It is our
hypothesis that empowerment favors
conservation and gender analysis is a tool
for empowerment.
6. Successful conservation initiatives
require the participation of stakeholder
audiences in gender-focused,
analytical/evaluative training.
Comments:


6.a. Should we try to measure within
the MERGE group the impact that training
in participatory/gender approaches is
having on the effectiveness of trainees' to
empower and involve communities in
conservation efforts? This might be a very
complicated thing to do, especially because
we are still in the process of understanding
how the gender dimension works in
conservation ofNR.
7. Conservation will be successful in
the long run if stakeholder training is
combined with strategies for institutional
change and partnership to provide
continuity in extension, research, technical
assistance and other participatory activities
with local communities.
Comments:
7.a. I assume that the documentation
and the exchange of experiences to be
generated by MERGE will provide us with
materials to understand better the
implications of this hypothesis. Among the
questions that I would like to understand
and that I see implicit in this hypothesis
are: What are the current constraints faced
by conservation institutions (international,
national, local) to incorporate local
communities in conservation? What are the
different understandings of what effective
conservation means? What are the
different understandings of community
participation and? What are the limitations
that institutions not directly involved in
conservation, like the universities in the
MERGE consortium, have to build
effective partnerships with local
communities and conservation institutions?
General comment to the hypotheses:
As I indicated in my response to the first
questions, I think that this effort to
organize our ideas in the form of










hypotheses is excellent and valuable. I still
do not see how could we now move onto
agree on a common procedure to test the
hypotheses. This would require time,
money and other resources that are not
necessarily available. Perhaps what we
could realistically do is keep working on
the hypotheses, mostly producing a
strategy for testing and collecting case
studies related to the assumptions in order
to prepare ourselves (intellectually and
financially) to work in their test in 1997.
Could we separate sometime during the
March Conference in Quito to continue
work in the hypotheses?

Sandra Russo: I'm afraid that my
pessimistic/realistic/pragmatic view of life
on our planet now is that the big boys, big
business, and big bucks will win out over
our holistic, collaborative, "small" (as
opposed to big) approach. Also, we're
assuming that local peoples are always
working together toward common goals.
Is this a bit of the "noble savage" thinking
and aren't people everywhere usually most
concerned with themselves and their
families which may not translate into a
concern for their community and
environment?
Let's talk about futuring, and scenario
planning, and sustainability -- do we know
what we are implying by assumption No. 2
-- negotiating among conflicting groups?
I feel there is an underlying assumption
that good will win (that's us) when there
may be no winners and lots of losers (the
environment).
We are also assuming that others (whoever
they are) will care about gender. I do
agree that there are probably gender
differences but that they are site-specific


and possibly even family specific. I can
think of no agricultural task, for example,
that is not done by men and women
somewhere in the world even when it may
be prohibited in other places. Rather, I
think that using the'gender door allows us
to ask much broader questions. It's as if
we "hide" or masquerade behind gender
scholars so we can ask all kinds of
questions formerly not asked. Kind of a
neat ploy actually. It's a Columbo
approach!
We need many more conversations about
this. I hope that the Quito workshop will
give us time to talk with each other.

Marianne Schmink: I hope to work on
elaborating a paper for the Quito
workshop that would expand on each
point in the framework. We need to
explore 1) what is unique about the
MERGE perspective (our definitions of
conservation, gender, and community); 2)
what is known about each point in the
MERGE framework; 3) what are the key
issues to address with regard to each
assumption and hypothesis; and 4) what
kind of research is most urgently needed to
address these conceptual and practical
issues. After experimenting with the use
of the framework in classroom situations,
I believe it has strong potential for spelling
out a logical progression of ideas focusing
on community-based biodiversity
conservation with a gender emphasis.

HilaryFeldstein: No.3. Use of, access to,
control of and impact on natural resources
are differentiated by gender. Here I
wonder if we should leave gender hanging
there without recognition of other
variables. It is a key variable and as said


MERGE








Conceptualization Workshop Report


below provides entire to other social
variables. Limiting it to gender alone
seems to me to make it more arguable. Or
even restating it to say: Gender
differentiation in the use of, access to,
control of and impact on natural resources
is an important element in understanding
natural resource management practices and
potential. Or, linked to hypothesis No. 6:
gender analysis provides insights into the
use of,.....natural resources. This retains
the potential of gender analysis to provide
insights on other social variables as under
your definition.


No. 5. Conservation initiatives that
incorporate insights from gender analysis
to empower local groups will be successful
and equitable. I like this Because it
separates knowledge from gender analysis
from taking action on that knowledge,
emphasizing the latter.
No. 6. Successful conservation initiatives
require the participation of stakeholder
audiences in gender-focused,
analytical/evaluative training. Training
in/on what? Perhaps facilitated workshops
on natural resource management.


6.4 Additional Comments:


Avecita Chicch6n: I think that this
workshop was very successful because it
brought together individuals that are
grappling with common issues in different
countries with different specific subjects. It
helped that almost everyone knew each
other previously. I liked the comfortable
atmosphere all along the workshop, and
the interest and hard work invested by all
the participants. I only regret that we did
not have more time. I hope we can
continue this dialogue by e-mail.


Susan Poats: In sum, the workshop was
great, and there wasn't a lot you could do
to improve it. Congratulations.

Marianne Schmink: The workshop was
really an enjoyable intellectual opportunity
that provided an excellent opportunity for
reflection, team-building, and collective
learning.

HilaryFeldstein: It was a good group and
well organized with specific Plaudits for
allowing lots of time for discussion and
batting around ideas.







MERGE


7




REFERENCES




Alcoff, L. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: the identity crisis in feminist
theory. Signs 13(7):405-434.

Arizpe, Lourdes, Priscilla Stone, and David Major (eds.) 1994. Population and environment:
rethinking the debate. Westview Press.

Arguello, Maria A. 1995. Extractive activities in northwestern Ecuador: the case of the
Commune Rio Santiago-Cayapas. M.A. thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of
Florida.

Bacchi, C.L. 1990. Same/difference: feminism and sexual difference. Allen & Unwin. Sydney.

Bedoya, Eduardo, Jane Collins, and Michael Painter 1987. Estrat6gias productivas y
recursos naturales en la Amazonia. Lima: Centro de Investigaci6n y Promoci6n
Amaz6nica.

Collins, Jane 1988 Unseasonal migrations: the effects of rural labor scarcity in Peru.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

FAO, Community Forest Unit 1994. Draft international training package on gender analysis
and forestry in Asia.

Feldstein, Hilary Sims, and Susan Poats 1990. Working together: gender analysis in
agriculture. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Frye, M. 1983. The politics of reality. Crossing Press. New York.








Conceptualization Workshop Report


Hartsock, N.C.M. 1990. Foucault on power: a theory for women. IN L.J.Nicholson (ed).
Feminism/Postmodernism. Routledge. New York.

hooks, B. 1989. Talking back. South End Press. Boston.

Illo, Jeanne 1994. Strategizing for change. pp.49-52 in Aruna Rao, Marguerite Appel,
Kirsten Moore, and Hilary Sims Feldstein (eds.) Reflections and Learnings: Gender
Trainers workshop report, Amsterdam, June 1993 Amsterdam and New York:
Royal Tropical Institute and the Population Council.

Kabeer, Naila 1994 Reversed realities: gender hierarchies in development thought. Verso,
1994.

Kelly, Terry 1995. A bioeconomic systems approach to sustainability analysis at the farm
levl. Ph. D. dissertation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

King, Y. 1989. The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. IN J. Plant (ed).
Healing the Wounds. New Society Publ. Philadelphia.

Kraft, Karen 1995. Andean fields and fallow pastures. Ph.D. dissertation. Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida.

Leach, Melissa 1992. Women's crops in women's spaces: gender relations in Mende rice
farming. Pp. 76-96 in E. Croll and D. Parkin (eds.), Bush base: forest farm, culture,
environment and development. Routledge.

Leach, Melissa 1994 Rain Forest Relations: Gender and Resource Use Among the Mende
of Gola, Sierra Leone. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lourdes Arizpe, M. Priscilla Stone, and David C. Major. 1994 Population & Environment:
Rethinking the Debate. Westview.

Me Daniel, Joshua 1995. Communal fisheries management in the Peruvian Amazon :
socioeconomic motivations and biological parameters. M.A. thesis. Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida.

Merchant, C. 1981. Earthcare: women and the environmental movement. Environment
23(5):6-40.

Molyneux. M. 1981. Women's emancipation under socialism: a model for the Third World?
World Development. Vol. 9, No. 9/10.








MERGE


Moser, Caroline 0. 1989 Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting practical and
strategic gender needs. World Development 17:1799(27).

Parker, A. Rani 1993. Another point of view: a manual on gender analysis training for
grassroots workers. New York, NY; UN Divt. Fund for Women.

Plumwood, V. 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. Routledge. New York

Plumwood, V. 1996. Wilderness skepticism and wilderness dualism. IN J.D. Callicott and M.
Nelson (eds.). The great new wilderness debate. University of Georgia Press. Athens.

Rao, Aruna, and Mary Anderson, and Overholt, Catherine A. (eds.) 1991. Gender analysis
in development planning: a case book. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.

Rocheleau, Dianne 1988. Gender resource management and the rural landscape: implications
for agroforestry and farming systems research. Pp. 149-169 in Susan Poats, Marianne
Schmink, and Anita Spring (eds.) Gender issues in Farming Systems Research and
Extension, Westview Press.

Sen, Gita 1994. Development, population and the environment: a search for balance. Pp.
63-73 in Gita Sen, Adrienne Germain, and Lincoln C. Chen (eds.), Population policies
reconsidered: health. empowerment, and rights. Harvard University Press.

Stuart, Rieky 1994. Change is in the air. Pp.35-38 in Aruna Rao, Marguerite Appel, Kirsten
Moore, and Hilary Sims Feldstein (eds.) Reflections and learning: gender trainers
workshop report, Amsterdam. June 1993 Amsterdam and New York: Royal
Tropical Institute and the Population Council.

Warren, K. 1990. The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Env. Ethics. 12:125-
146.

Warren, K. (ed) 1995. Ecological Feminism. Routledge. New York.









Conceptualization Workshop Report


APPENDIX I




LIST OF PARTICIPANTS


Arun Agrawal
Program in Agrarian Studies
Yale University

Suely Anderson
MERGE/REBRAF
Brazil

Elena Bastidas
MERGE/TCD
University of Florida

Paquita Bath
The Nature Conservancy
Latin America/ Caribbean Region

Richard Bodmer
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation/TCD
University of Florida

Constance Campbell
MERGE/TCD
University of Florida

Avecita Chicch6n
Conservation International
Peru

Jon Dain
MERGE/TCD
University of Florida









MERGE


Cristina Espinosa
CLAS/TCD
University of Florida

Hilary Feldstein
CGIAR Gender Program
IFPRI

Peter Hildebrand
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida

Karen Kainer
School of Forest Resources & Conservation
University of Florida

Susan Poats
FLACSO
Ecuador

Jorge Recharte
FLACSO
Ecuador

Sandra Russo
Office oflnt'l Studies and Programs
University of Florida

Marianne Schmink
CLAS/TCD
University of Florida

Lisette Staal
CLAS/TCD
University of Florida

Amanda Stronza
CLAS/TCD
University of Florida

Anne Todd-Bockarie
School of Forest Resources & Conservation
University of Florida




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs