Perceptions of the women and natural environment connection are multiple, and have been evolving over the years. Successive studies and conferences, and debates at national, regional or sub-regional and global levels have tried to provide concrete meaning and body to this relationship, which still continues to be elusive for many policy makers.1
Underlying the debates are questions that are not always clearly articulated in the few dialogues that have been held on policymaking, though WID researchers and advocates have struggled to pose them with some sharpness.
Are all women equally victims of the present environmental crisis as part of the entire population? Or are they specially affected and more vulnerable either because of their biological or their social roles? Although there has been some discussion on the effects of environmental pollution or degradation on women's reproductive health, the debates seeking to locate women in the 'save the environment' discussions appear to have concentrated mainly on the Poverty-Environment-Women connection. The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women (1985) refers to 'vulnerable groups' in drought-affected areas, those 'deprived of their traditional means of livelihood', destitutes, sole supporters of families and the urban poor, as women whose condition has been adversely affected by environmental degradation.
The general preparations for the World Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 focussed more on 'examining the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation'2 strengthening the widely prevalent view among the haves of the world that the poor are largely responsible for the present environmental crisis. Stretched to its global logic, this view incorporates a similar charge against the poor but populous countries of the world. Moreover, since centuries of biological research have not helped to eliminate the association of women only with reproduction the tendency to view women as the real population threat remains. This view considerably alters the image of women as victims of the environmental crisis by investing them with an active role in contributing to the world's population explosion.
The current emphasis on 'sustainability' in the development discourse led the Preparatory Committee for UNCED, at its third session, to ask the Secretary General of the Conference that 'women's critical economic, social and environmental contributions to sustainable development be addressed at the Conference as a distinct cross-cutting issue'. A UNICEF/UNFPA/UNCED, symposium on the impact of Environmental Degradation and Poverty on Women and Children (May 27-30, 1991) sought to identify women's real and potential contributions to sustainable development, with a view to their incorporation in Agenda 21 and the Earth Charter. The Symposium's Report3 is refreshing for some significantly new formulations. Only some of them are presented here as relevant to the main substance of this paper.
1. Historically and in terms of grassroot realities women are managers of natural resources, and dependent on them for their livelihood. Neglect of these roles will therefore adversely affect sustainability of any strategies for environmental development. UNCED, is a high point in a continuing effort to make leaders more accountable and to draw upon the skills, views and experiences of women. (p. 5)
2. The Report rejects the notion that poor people and women's fertility are the primary causes of environmental degradation. Instead, it argues that women's disenfranchisement - resulting in a lack of voice in policy-making - increases their vulnerability. Alternative strategies for environmental conservation or regeneration, therefore, should focus on resource users, recognise women as actors, and not view their legitimate/overriding concerns as 'problems'. (pp. 7-8)
3. Technology transfer needs to be a two-way process. Indigenous/local knowledge and practices may have potential for environmental and other developmental needs, and need to be respected. Case studies presented many examples of women (local and indigenous) who have developed their own ways of managing natural resources. Their perspectives are often multidimensional and multi-functional... Systematic denigration of indigenous knowledge means also the systematic marginalisation of the people from whom that knowledge originated. (p. 13)
These radical reformulations come from over a decade of close observation and experience of working with women at the grassroots, as well as growing disillusionment with existing shibboleths of the development discourse. They were articulated at the symposium by 'experts and resource people involved in grassroots activities and represented a broad spectrum from all geographical areas, the majority being women from developing countries'4 (p. 3)
Somewhat broader and more sophisticated conclusions have come from the Tribunal of the Miami World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet (November 8-12, 1991). The Tribunal was constituted with five women jurists-three from developing countries, two from developed ones. After receiving testimony from 15 witnesses on issues ranging from people's (especially women's) rights, to global economic relations, science, technology, population policies and their impact on the natural environment, the Tribunal made the following declaration:
The witnesses showed from their evidence that they and many other women have a wealth of knowledge and experiences in environmental issues. Their expertise should clearly be utilized in planning and implementing the policies necessary to overcome the problems identified.5
But the hidden question still remains - are we talking about all women, or even all poor women? Is it being suggested that women, by their very nature, are better managers of natural resources even when their livelihood or the survival of their families are not dependent on such resources? Do all women globally, or even within the developing countries share the concerns or the views expressed by the Miami Congress? Or do they all share the special knowledge, skills and aspirations that could improve the conservation, management and regeneration of the natural environment?
A great deal of scholarship and elaborate information-gathering over the last decade by a range of researchers, has informed our general understanding of problems that beset varied ecosystems in the world. Nevertheless, many NGOs who work with poor women to improve their economic or health situation continue to assume, like most policy makers, and scientific/technical experts, that such women must be educated and made aware of environmental problems before they can make any effective contribution to the discussions. A similar assumption characterises many committed environmentalists, who believe that the knowledge they have taken years to acquire is not within the reach of poor, often illiterate women. Historical explorations that identify women as the initiators of productive activity, through their discovery of agriculture, are still known to a very small minority, even among feminists.
It is only in a few cases - where grassroots work results in a mutual understanding and respect for each other's strengths, concerns and specialised knowledge - that the connection is clarified: between poor women's occupational or functional specialisations, the empirical knowledge and skills that come from that specialisation and the markedly distinct attitudes and concerns that such women display regarding the destruction, degradation or disappearance of their forest, land and water resources.
This brings us to the last hidden question - why is there this reluctance to put a name to the particular group of women who demonstrate this collection of characteristics? Why obscure them within abstract generic terms-women, poor women, even rural women? Two decades of DID studies have made some of us alert to the kinds of invisibility that attend dominant discourses and how they hide the actual social, economic and political roles, or direct contributions made by women located at the bottom of the social, economic, power or knowledge hierarchies that characterize most nations of the world. The family, household, community, people-each a collective that is supposed to be all inclusive and gender neutral-acquire monolithic, patriarchal and abstract features in usage. WID lore is replete with the struggles that have been necessary to penetrate this invisibility, to obtain data, to make gender-wise comparisons, to identify the subtle methods through which discrimination against women is institutionalised and their marginalisation accepted as the natural order of things.
In the stratified societies of South Asia where the social status or prestige of a family is determined to a great extent by the social invisibility or visibility of its women's labour, it is critically important to clearly define the class characteristics of the women we are seeking to project as key actors in the environmental crisis that continues to unfold. The first chapter of this presentation shares the results of four conferences (or Summits, as UNIFEM, the sponsoring agency, designated them) of peasant women- i.e. village women who are experienced and expert cultivators. They work in agriculture and allied fields (livestock rearing, tree planting, sericulture, pisciculture, etc.) They collect water, fuel, fodder and other minor forest produce for the family's consumption, and also for the market. Droughts, floods, landslides, deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, salination - words in newspapers for most of us in urban areas-spell DISASTER to these women. Whatever the official data systems acknowledge, these women labour from 14-18 hours a day, as against their men's 8-10 hours. The Summits were designed to capture their perspectives, experiences and aspirations, and to try to remove some of the veils of invisibility that prevent policy makers and scientific experts' from seeing and listening to them.
The main purpose of these meetings was to enable women to express solidarity, to enhance the understanding of their struggles for survival and to further the legitimacy of ongoing development programmes. The philosophy of sustainable development was outlined by the women themselves after wide-ranging and in-depth discussions which culminated in the emergence of new concepts.
The initiative in fact went beyond just the philosophy and emerged with a critique of development as seen by the women themselves. It proved to be an enabling mechanism for policy makers and environment specialists for 'engendering' or adapting development to the concerns of women living in poverty.
Despite the massive participation of peasant women in the growing environmental movements and protests in the region, studies undertaken for the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) countries on environment in the late Eighties relegate women to one line- 'Participation of Women and Children in Environment' - to be achieved through networking in regard to studies on women and environment and involving administrators, groups of NGOs and field workers, to facilitate exchange of information, joint research and policy formulation. There is no mention of why such participation is desirable or why women are clubbed along with children. Is the participation seen to be similar in nature? Or is the statement an unconscious reflection of deep-rooted ideologies that equate women's capacities or concerns only with children?
Since no official effort has been made to examine peasant women's role in environment management at the regional level, this series of conferences was path-breaking in its search for some concrete areas of cooperation, sharing and empowerment, within the countries of the region.
We must acknowledge the far-sightedness of UNIFEM in making these meetings possible. Our collective identification of peasant women 'as the largest group directly connected' with the environment-development matrix led to the necessity of putting them on the agenda of global, as well as national and regional, debates. And putting them on the agenda, required 'bringing them into our midst'.6 It is no longer adequate to talk about empowerment in general terms, nor can the prerogative to define such empowerment be taken by any other group. Hence, the four National Summits where peasant women identified the systemic source of their problems, demonstrated their expertise and then held out their offer of a partnership.7 At the Regional Conference in Lahore, our peasant colleagues empowered us by demonstrating that national and linguistic boundaries cannot prevent their ability to share and support each other's perspectives and aspirations, validating our initial conclusion as well as our hopes.
Our gratitude to the Delhi office of the FAO's Freedom from Hunger Campaign for enabling us to prepare this paper, not only on the basis of documents, but through direct observation at the Summits. It gave us the opportunity to be warmed by the energy and welcome generated by our peasant sisters, and the trust they bestowed on us to communicate their voices to the world outside.
Vina Mazumdar
Centre for Women's Development Studies
New Delhi, May 15, 1992
Notes
1 Centre for Science and Environment, The State of India's Environment, First Citizens' Report, Delhi, 1982.
Kumud Sharma, Women in Struggle: Role and Participation in the Chipko Movement in Uttarkhand Region in Uttar Pradesh, Occasional Monograph-I, Centre for Women's Development Studies, Delhi, 1987.
2 Decision 1/25 of the first Preparatory Committee Meeting; Document on Poverty and Environmental Degradation. - A/Conf. 151/PC/15.
3 Women and Children First-The Impact of Environmental Degradation and Poverty on Women and Children, Geneva, May 27-30, 1991.
4 Selected recommendations of the Symposium are given in Annexure-I.
5 Declaration of the Tribunal of the Miami World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet, Miami, November 12, 1991.
6 Irene Santiago (UNIFEM), at the Regional Conference that followed the Summits, February 10-12, 1992.
7 Ibid.
