Women’s participation and the gender perspective in sustainable forestry in Cambodia: local perceptions and the context of forestry research

Abstract

We analyzed local stakeholders' perceptions on women's engagement in sustainable forestry and the challenges women face. We additionally examined the publication of scientific papers on women's participation and gender perspectives in forestry research. We employed Kendall's W to examine the concordance of local peoples' assessment of the knowledge of rural women related to forestry, the major barriers preventing women participating effectively in sustainable forestry and the tasks required to engage women better. The study revealed only very weak agreement regarding the knowledge of rural women about forestry (Kendall's W ¼ 0.47, p < .000). Local people considered women knew most about sustainable forestry and use of forest for various purposes and less about the trees and forests. The study found moderate agreement (Kendall's W ¼ .118, p < .000) concerning the major barriers preventing women participating effectively in sustainable forestry, with the most significant barrier being low female participation in decision-making bodies. There was very weak agreement on the highest priority task required to engage women better in forestry management (Kendall's W ¼ .035, p < .000). Quantitative content analysis was used to analyze the scientific papers. From 1992 to September 2018, 537 scientific papers were published in 171 journals, with study sites in 83 countries, related to women and gender in 1) forest, 2) REDD þ and 3) community-based forestry. The countries most covered by the research were: Indonesia (27 articles), India (39), United States (45) and Nepal (51). There was a significant increase in the number of papers on women's participation and gender mainstreaming in 1) forest (n ¼ 482), and 2) community-based forestry (n ¼ 20) from 2007, and in 3) REDD þ discourses (n ¼ 34) from 2011. This study suggests further scientific research is needed on women's participation and gender perspective in sustainable forestry and environmental concerns if the collective action needed for sustainable forest management is to be effectively addressed.

Addressing Gender Inequities in Forest Science and Research

“…For instance, rural women have been excluded from decentralised forest governance structures in Southern Tanzania and this has caused an unequal distribution of the benefits of the natural resources that forests provide [10], potentially causing other social and economic problems for women and children, especially for sustainable development under a changing climate [11,12]. The exclusion of women in natural resource management is a global issue associated with the marginalisation of Indigenous communities and their knowledge systems [13,14].…”

Addressing power imbalances in biosequestration governance

“…Meanwhile, their dependence on forests and other natural resources tends to be greater: on average, women earn and own far less monetary resources than men and thus they are even more dependent upon free access to natural resources like fuelwood, medicinal and edible plants. It is estimated that at least 850 million rural poor rely on forests for basic necessities like fuelwood and medicinal plants for family needs, of which 83 per cent are women (Nhem and Jin Lee, 2019). Moreover, in many traditional societies women bear the first responsibility for collecting the necessary fuelwood, freshwater and medicines for the household.…”

“…Moreover, in many traditional societies women bear the first responsibility for collecting the necessary fuelwood, freshwater and medicines for the household. Women often play a key role in community forest management practices, but this role is seldom reflected in forest governance structures (Nhem and Jin Lee, 2019; World Bank, 2009;). Schroeder (1993) also points at the risk of planning biosequestration and other environmental programs around the use of unpaid female labor.…”

What happens to local participation when national ownership gets stronger? Initiating an exploration in Rwanda and Cambodia

“…Other aid‐funded efforts to involve the local population in defining and “doing” development have continued, also at regional level and by “non‐traditional” donors (Sneddon & Fox, 2007; Milne & Adams, 2012; Yang, 2016). Still, according to research and donor assessments, people’s substantial involvement remains limited, reflecting common drawbacks, such as legitimation of predetermined agendas, reinforcement of gender and other power structures, and participation perceived as a compulsory burden on poor people (Blunt & Turner, 2005; Öjendal & Kim, 2006; Pellini & Ayres, 2007; UNDP, 2010; Plummer & Tritt, 2012; Plummer et al, 2013; Nhem & Lee, 2019).…”