Posted March 2000
By Dr. Revathi Balakrishnan,
FAO Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok
National Science Congress: India
3-7 January 2000
In this beginning of the new century diversity and complexity define development paradigm. This is a carry over from the past century, as during the last quarter, the environmental concerns dominated the development dialogue following the Rio Earth Summit. This is in contrast to the situation in the second quarter of the past century, when the concerns over "feeding the world" lead the development agenda with support to research and development to increase agriculture production to supply food to avert famine. As we enter the new century, increasingly diversity characterizes the development agenda, but the fundamental problems of development persist. The diversification is reflected in the expanded agenda for development concerns addressed, partnerships sought and clientele integrated to achieve growth with equity and food security for all. The complex dimension of paradigm for development is associated with the endorsement of multiplicity in programme approaches, analytical methods and intervention strategies advocated by multidisciplinary specialists and development organizations. Such a trend in research and development in agriculture sector is evident in an expanded agenda - diversification in research problems and emergence of sophisticated tools and techniques, and most recently growing recognition of the social impacts of science and popular demand to collaborate with users in developing technologies.
1.1. But most importantly, the persisting challenge to those who are involved in agriculture and rural development sectors, arises from a fundamental concern. The fundamental concern is one of balancing the dual development objectives such as providing adequate food for all today and protecting the ecological resource base to provide food for all in the future. Hence crux of agriculture development interventions can be viewed as "sustenance and sustainability." Expanding the circle of actors to all scientists directly involved in technology development such as bioresource development, inclusive of biodiversity management and exploration in biotechnology options, central issue of research and development agenda can be summed as "sustenance and sustainability." In these days set in the context of intense global arguments the agenda for research and development associated with biodiversity and biotechnology could be confronting the four issues namely, "Sustenance, Sustainability, Safety and Equity. "There could be congruence of purpose among the scientists and rural clientele, particularly rural women in India and across Asia. Scientists and the rural women can form a productive partnership to achieve the objectives of "sustenance, sustainability, safety and equity."
1.2. At the outset, it is recognized that there is a wide range of differences among the disciplines and training of the scientists as among the needs and abilities of rural women clientele. The scientists come under one class group of well educated with advanced professional training and enjoy recognized economic achievement and social visibility. But the rural women, most often in Asia and particularly in India are, illiterate, non-informed and poor and also suffer the adverse biases against them perpetuated by traditional attitudes fostered by culture. A class divide exists between the scientific community and communities of rural women. Yet a mutually rewarding partnership among scientist and rural women can be developed. It would emerge through a sound understanding among the scientists involved in bio-resource development, of technology needs of rural women who are bioresource users and managers. In other words, the challenge is one of bridging the class divide between the technology producers - scientists - the rural technology consumers- rural households- inclusive of rural women.
1.3. Many a possibilities exist for closing the gap between lab and land people in the field of bioresource development. A promising beginning is evident in this very forum that is organized to share the views on "Sustainable Bioreosurce Development -Women Beneficiaries." I would humbly submit that rural women should not be merely beneficiaries, but they should be the driving-force to set the agenda for sustainable bioresource development. Now I will go on to provide evidence on rural women's crucial role in bioresource and biodiversity management, to reinforce the argument that women should be driving forces to set the agenda for science based technology development.
The broad spectrum of perceptions on sustainable agriculture/resource management varies widely from an eco-friendly production system to a self-reliant life style close to nature, moving on further to become a cultural philosophy. There could also be a gender-differentiated perceptions of sustainability, and safety. The emergence of gender discussion in sustainable agriculture follows closely the trend in global gender dialogue. Most recently, Chiappe and Flora (1998) observe that the perceptions of, and action toward, sustainability in agriculture is highly dependent on the material and cultural context in which actors are situated. Accordingly, "Gender although it never acts independently of other 'locators', such as race/ethnicity, social class, and geographic location, is an important determinant of location". Their study among the north American women involved in sustainable farming organizations and on family farms experimenting with new practices validated the elements of alternative agriculture paradigm, but also suggested additional two elements that women identified as part of an alternative agriculture vision: quality of family life and spirituality. Hence first a partnership between technology generating bio-scientists and social scientists has to forged to understand the social realities of technology users, and in particularly the difference among women and men's concerns over sustainability and sustenance.
2.1. We should also examine the perceptions of bioresource management by rural women situated in the material and cultural context of marginal and poor farmers in Asia. Most of them are in the sustenance farming business because they have no other viable livelihood alternative. These farmers live close to nature, and harvest the nature- it is their way of life. It is stated that "People use and overuse of every resource available to them when their survival is at stake and they have run out of alternative mechanisms for survival. Desperate hunger leads to desperate strategies for survival. At this point conservation of natural resources for their own welfare or the welfare of their children is less important to them." (Pinstrup-Andersen and Pandya-Lorch 1995). Hence both poor women and men use the ecological resources intensively, that fails to meet the indicator criteria for "environmentally sound." At their level, the concerns of sustenance and sustainability assume different meanings, and for many of them low input option is not a choice, but a reality as there is no other choice. Scientific agenda for bioresource development should respond to gender differentiated rural realities of demand to expand households' livelihood alternatives to fulfill the objectives of both sustenance and sustainability.
2.2. For the farmers, the idea of consumption safety of the produce for their own good health and that of others, may not be the primary concern. Currently, there is a growing debate on the risk of biotechnology options. The issues debated are biotechnology's potential to improve agriculture productivity, and food security and framers' income. Leisinger (1999) observes that, "Public debate about the 'gene revolution' often suffers from a failure to differentiate between risks inherent in a technology and those that transcend it. This differentiation is utmost importance in any attempt to reason out the risk arising from biotechnology." If the debate of safety and risk are so complicated, that evades the comprehension of an educated population, then it could be no easy matter for rural technology users to understand the debate. The situation also points to the current Asian dilemma in agriculture research and technology transfer sector-namely polarization of scientific know-how and technology use. The biotechnology and the science backing it have become highly specialized and sophisticated, while rural women clients for the agriculture technology, remain disadvantaged in educational attainment and lack access to technology. As observed by Juma and Gupta (1999), "The rapid pace of technological change and the wide-ranging nature of the perceived effects of biotechnology necessitate much greater public participation in policy making…. The issue is not simply one of providing scientific information to the public, but rather of building trust between science and society." Building trust with rural society is yet another challenge facing the scientists in agriculture and related sector. Hence while engaging in bioresource development, scientists have additional responsibility of making the right technology /biosafety decisions with participation of women clients in rural areas.
2.3. Similarly the farmers' concerns over, understanding and awareness of rights in the management of biodiversity and use of biotechnology, can be very poor. Particularly among Asian rural women, these concepts of rights and benefit sharing can be vague and but not an immediate priority while struggling with concerns of sustenance and secure livelihood. The collective bargaining in global agenda would demand a collaborative process that includes the interests of farmers, inclusive of women as an important segment of stakeholders. Barton (1999) reiterates the need for the arrangement for products that benefit the developing world and sums it as, "To accomplish these goals, developing nations must mobilize their legal and scientific human resources." Hence, while engaging in bioresource development, scientists will also contribute their knowledge to the formulation of national and global policies to ensure equity in sharing the wealth of bioresources and bioresource based new knowledge.
The symposium focuses on a subset of the sustainability domain, that is the bioresource development. The meaning and content of bioresource management as against bioresource development could vary among the clientele and development situation. But we could argue that, managing bioresources makes more sense for the rural clientele than a broader dimension such as managing environment. Similarly for the scientists bioresource development is the objective, but not exploiting the environment with adverse impact. The scope for environment management is very broad and the concerns complex and are at times beyond the grasps of rural women. But rural women understand well, that there are many materials available from forests, water sources, plant variety, animal stock, aquatic life, land and soil that provide the basic goods for their livelihood and sustenance. These basic materials constitute bioresources they seek and use in their everyday living. Viewed from a rural family's resource use point of view, a scientific focus on the availability and the quality of the bioresources to fulfill demands of livelihood and food security is important. By taking stock of rural women's bioresource demands and facilitating their access and judicious use of these resources, the goal for sustainable bioresource management can be realized. In this context, a priority in the scientific agenda is in ensuring sustained availability of bioresources to household needs. This may mean that basic bioresources of water, land, soil and forests and fauna are managed effectively to provide basic resources to both the current generation and the future generation. There are also issues of equitable access to these bioresources for the all the stakeholders in the community, including rural women.
3.1. Bioresource development defined as development of new technologies based on bioresource materials of plants and animals, is a relatively new agenda for the scientific community. Within its short span of scientific advancement various issues such as product safety and benefit equity have emerged that are to be confronted by the scientific community as well as by the consumers. As we begin the new century potential for sustainable bioresource development to ensure safe and secure sustenance will be debated much. Within the region, the bio-scientific agenda has to be sensitive to the concerns raised about explorations in to the bioresource development. At the same time, the potential for sustainable bioresource development to improve the living levels of rural women should not be ignored. To realize the goal of sustainability, bioresource development explorations should be grounded on the Indian and Asian realities of rural households resource situation and the contributions of rural women, their constraints to using their full productive potential and to share the benefits equitably. Therefore it becomes important for bio-scientists to be knowledgeable about social dimensions of science and user needs. The scientists in the lab should know about their clients in the land-based economies. Their social knowledge of the rural clients should structured on the understanding of gender divided labour responsibilities in managing bioresources, gender differentiated access to bioresources and gender divided knowledge of bioresources.
3.2. There are some interesting issues raised on the compatibility goals of sustainable biodiversity management and biotechnology development. A central question is how to safeguard the national endowment of biodiversity while developing new bioresource based products to improve option to achieve better life? Hence, scientific endeavor of development of bioresources can be a broader concept that can reflect the balanced scientific pursuit. It may provide an agenda for research and development that balances the four aspects of sustenance, sustainability, safety and equity. It will be important that the scientific community shows the social responsibility to balance these four objectives, though at times there could be conflicting perspectives on impacts and priorities. Drawing from a people's participation perspective, it could be stated that sustainable bioresource development is the one that offers viable options for increasing the living levels of most people, particularly rural communities. Hence what is not viable may not be sustainable. The viability test should rigorously consider the right fit between new technology and the adoption potential of rural workers/producers who are most often women in India and across Asia. Viable options can be developed, by defining the research agenda through realistic understanding of people's knowledge and use of bioresources on gender lines.
Most common understanding of sustainability points to conservation of bioresources such as land, water, soil and, forest. Since, women are active users of these resources, often degradation of these resources affect them adversely. At the same time as users of these resources women also have unique knowledge of these resources from users' perspectives. Rural women very often are placed in the center of controversy as related to forest resource depletion. But it is important to identify link between sustenance and sustainability in the nexus of rural poverty and to understand as where the women clientele fit in this complex situation.
4.1. Emanating from evidence available on global situation, that the rural women allocate a substantial proportion of their time in agriculture production and searching for bio-resources to provide for the family's needs. FAO commissioned case studies on gender dimension in biodiversity, so far provide a rudimentary understanding of the complex technical area that attempts to interface a social dimension with the biosphere science. There is scope for expanding our understanding with cooperation of scientific community representing interested in bioresource development. From the completed studies we could document rural women's role in biodiversity management, their spheres of activities and knowledge into three broad categories. These are i) Farm crop diversity and gender dimension; ii) Home garden diversity and gender dimension; and iii) Forest resource biodiversity and gender dimension. Technology development for rural women should consider women's role and knowledge in these three areas of production that often overlap. In all these aspects rural men and women are the custodians of basic knowledge on the local biomaterial sources and traditional uses.
In the Asian small farmer households diversification of crops grown on the farm is a strategy for reducing food insecurity risk due a crop failure. A variety of crops grown either by rotation or as mixed planting had ensured availability of food through changing seasons and shortfalls. By tradition availability of viable seeds for a variety of crops at the household level had been the basis for assured supply of food for the farm families. Women were the seed managers at the Asian farm households. A diversified crop regime also has been considered as a preventive cultural practice to control pests and diseases. It ensures relatively greater self-reliant production system for access to food in the remote and isolated households of small and marginal farmers. Farmers' production rationale well tuned to the importance of biodiversity for a viable farming enterprise. It is a valid observation by Buffet (1997) that asserts that biodiversity is not something that farmers talk about at the local coffee shop. It is, however, already a very important component of their profession. Nature provides a whole system to make farming viable. Hence a productive and sustainable agricultural system depends on maintaining the integrity of this biodiversity. Anderson (1993) had done an elaborate descriptive documentation of Ethnobotany in Northern Thailand's tribal areas. He observes that, a remarkable aspect of hill farming is the amazing variety of plants cultivated. It might appear that swidden fields contain only rice or maize, but he had counted atleast 88 different species of plants in this field.
4.A.1. In India research supported by FAO found that in the field of biodiversity management the reality is that gender roles are socially constructed rather than biologically determined. The studies found great variations in the tasks assigned to men and women in different locations, with the same tasks - such as seed selection or winnowing - being done by women in some communities but not in others. In areas of traditional agriculture, among communities and classes, which did not practice gender seclusion, women's participation in biomass-related activities was high, and women's knowledge and interest in conservation was apparent. In communities where women were the main food producers, such as the Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh and the Garhwalis of the Western Himalayas, or shared joint responsibility as among the Mizos, Nagas and some hill tribes of the Western Ghats, women's involvement with conservation practices (such as the preservation and maintenance of quality seed) was high. However, the project also found that this traditional knowledge base of both women and men was being eroded, with changes related primarily to age and secondarily to gender as, for example, in parts of Orissa. In agriculturally developed areas where market forces had penetrated deeply, such as in Tamil Nadu, women were less involved in conservation practices but continued to play a role in seed preservation. The research clearly pointed out that there is a simple or uniform division of labour, skills and knowledge along gender lines. Secondly, the research demonstrated that age and education are increasingly important factors in determining gender roles and knowledge of natural and ecological resources. Additionally in India, ICRISAT studies with farmer participation in varietal selection of peanut and pigeon peas also offer evidence to gender differentiated preference for crop characteristics. Similar gender roles mediated, relationships between food security and diversity in crops grown are documented in the FAO case studies on gender dimensions in biodiversity management in other countries such as Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka, while in Maldives the agro-context includes aquatic biodiversity as the basis for food security.
4.A.2. It is important that farmers' gender differentiated local knowledge of crops should be sought by scientists involved bioresource development, as in the case of new varieties and promotion of under utilized plants/crops. In the paradigm for participatory technology development farmer knowledge is an important input for research and development.
The significance of home garden for ensuring ecological biodiversity as well as for food security had been documented across the Asian region. In Northern Thailand tribal villages, Anderson (1993) found more than 90 species of plants cultivated in gardens and within villages and these varieties ensures food security. In the Philippines, a study results show that rural home gardens contributed to the household members' Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) by as much as 33 percent of energy, 47 percent of carbohydrate, 24 percent of protein, and 13 percent of fats. The case study in Sri Lanka documents the importance of home garden in crop systems of various agro-ecological zones. It has significance to ensure access to the cash income deficit rural households, In Sri Lanka, a farmer wife and her husband, in their home garden have great diversity of economically important plant species (30 species) grown on a limited space for use at home and commercial purposes. Maldivian case study presents the concept of home garden held by a woman farmer that differed from that of male farmer in the household. In Bangladesh homestead systems, rural women dominate (home garden) production. These gardens serve both a source of income as well as means to improve the family's food consumption.
4.B.2. Such is the evidence on the link between home garden diversity and food security, that the home garden should be factored as an important component in the initiatives related to developing bioresource technologies to promote food security.
The importance of forest resource diversity for livelihood security received global recognition at an early stage of sustainable development movement. Among the various components of the agro-biodiversity, perhaps one that is well documented is the issue area on forest resource management through people' participation. Women's regular contacts with local resources help sustain the system and transfer them from one generation to another. This system has been the technique through which information and even planting materials have been delivered from women to women or from one generation to the next. Their livelihood is secured when they have multiple sources; the forests, farms, common land, all of which are parts of household food security, income security, energy security etc. (Wickramasinghe, 1998).
4.C.1. In India recorded evidence on the use of forest resources by tribal communities. A case study prepared by Yadama (1997) for FAO illustrates that set in the tribal villages of Andhra Pradesh, forest dependent economy is vibrant and such economic relevance has lead to joint forest management initiatives. FAO work in the forestry area recognized the dependence of farm households on forest land for their livelihood activities. Hence, the efforts have been directed to ensure the partnership with forest dependent communities, with inclusion of women, to serve the production and conservation goals of forest resources management.
4.C.2. The case studies commissioned by FAO in the region documents well the importance of forest resource biodiversity as sources of food from the fauna and flora of their neighborhood forests. It is true in all the countries studied such as India, Maldives and Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the forest is also source of various raw materials that form the crucial input for the subsistence production based on non-wood forest products in which women play a central role.
4.C.3. In the bioresource development agenda, consideration should be given to the forest resource and farm diversity interface and the economic interaction with the explicit attention to rural women's role in bioresource management.
The UN-agenda 21 sets the framework for the FAO initiative in the area of biodiversity and bio-resource management. FAO Global Plans of Action for Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture provides the impetus for agro-biodiversity management mandate. FAO World Food Summit Plan of Action outlines the organizational mandate for food security and defines actions for sustainable management of ecological resources for food security. FAO adopts the position that " Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture provide the biological basis for world food security and support the livelihood of every person on earth. These resources serve as plant breeder's most important raw material and farmer's most essential input. Thus FAO acknowledges the roles played by generations of men and women farmers and plant breeders and by indigenous and local communities in conserving and improving plant genetic resources." At the farm household level in Asia, farmers, women and men are the managers of national biological resources. Hence the equitable partnership with these grass roots level plant genetic resource managers should be sought as guided by a sound understanding of their wealth of knowledge and dependence on bioresources.
The scientists gathered here at the women's forum are looking ahead for days filled with interesting and demanding tasks to serve well the women in rural communities. But the primary task is one of changing predominantly prevailing view of rural women, among scientists and technology developers. A scientific attitude should be fostered to perceive rural women as rightful clients for the endeavor of developing sustainable bioresource. But the task on bridging the gap among the scientists and rural society, particularly with rural women whose contribution is under valued and status undermined, is a daunting one. But for the scientists who split the atom and splice the genes, it should not be a difficult task , if they put on their objective scientific lens to look at the rural social realities. The evident facts would convince the objective scientists. I hope that your dialogue will explicitly assess the obstacles and forge a pragmatic action agenda to build productive -goal oriented linkages with rural women clientele.
Anderson .Edward. F. "Plants and people on the golden Triangle: Ethnobotany of the Hill tribe of Northern Thailand." Chiang Mai: Thailand: Silkworm Books.1993.
Wickramasinghe, Anoja. Gender and Technology Issues in Forest and Tree Resource Management. Paper Commissioned for FORSPA project. 1998.(Work in progress).
Buffett, Howard. As cited in Thrupp, Lori Ann. Cultivating Diversity: Agrobiodiversity and Food Security. Washington D.C. World Resources Institute. 1998. Page 47.
Chiappe, M.B. and Flora, Cornelia .B. Gendered Elements of the Alter native Agriculture Paradigm. Rural Sociology 63 (3) 1998 pp. 372-393.
FAO/UN. "Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Leipzig Declaration" Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization.1996
M. Hoskins, Rural women, Forest Outputs and Forestry Projects. Discussion draft, FAO, 1983.
Juma, Calestous and Gupta, Aarti. Safe use of Biotechnology. Biotechnology for Developing -Country Agriculture; Problems and Opportunities. Washington: D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute. Focus 2. Brief 6 of10. 1999.
Kanvinde, H. Maldivian Gender Roles in Bio-resource Management. FAO/RAP Publication. 1999/15.
Leisinger. Klaus. M. Disentangling Risk issues. Biotechnology for Developing -Country Agriculture; Problems and Opportunities. Washington: D.C. International Food Policy Research Institute. Focus 2. Brief 5 of 10. 1999.
Pinstrup-Andersen.P. and Rajul Pandya-Lorch. Poverty, Food Security, and the environment. A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture and the Environment. Washington D.C.: Inter National Food Policy Research Institute. 1995.
M.S. Swaminathan. Ed. Gender Dimensions in Biodiversity Management. New Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1998.
M.S.Swamianthan Research Foundation. Sri Lanka Country Report: Gender Dimensions in Biodiversity Management. FAO RAP. 1999.
Yadama.G.N. Pragada.B.R. Pragada. R.R. Forest dependent Survival Strategies of Tribal Women : implications for Joint Forest Management in Andra Pradesh , India. FAO RAP publication/1997/24.
 
|