Since the late 1960s awareness of the implications of global environmental problems has intensified dramatically. But only since the beginning of the 1990s has the environment been regarded as a security issue. The placement of the environment on the agenda of high politics is intrinsically linked to the shift in consciousness away from concerns regarding military security in the post-Cold War era.

This paper briefly traces the changes in the contemporary security discourse and highlights some of the tensions apparent in the environmental sector of security. It is argued that the current human security framework holds up a false holism. An increased sensitivity to the so-called 'marginalised' - without openly acknowledging women's specific gendered security needs - defeats all claims to total inclusivity. Whilst recognising that gender is not the only factor leading to a critical questioning of mainstream security thinking[1], I put forward the principle that a gender perspective not only enhances our understanding of global developments by analysing and confronting the partiality of masculinist accounts, but also offers alternative constructions that could lead to new and creative solutions to our environmental security problems.

Ecofeminism as a variant of feminism has a relatively established, though infamous, relationship with the environment. But still the consistent inclusion of gender on the environmental security agenda remains lacking and issues are contested mostly at the conceptual level. It is my contention that gender as a variable or tool of analysis will be far more effective if both the environmental security and ecofeminist discourses adopted a contextual approach. In practical terms it means addressing the security problems that arise from the intersection between environmental concerns and women's security needs in a particular setting. In this paper the context is Africa and the units of analysis are women of Africa.

FROM MILITARY TO HUMAN SECURITY

Barry Buzan[2] and Ken Booth[3] provide useful theoretical frameworks for the analysis of a multi-dimensional and multi-level security agenda. Booth recommends a broadening of the security concept both horizontally and vertically. On the horizontal axis security is seen as dependent on political democracy and a culture of human rights; social and economic development; environmental sustainability; as well as military stability.[4] In this regard Buzan identifies five 'sectors' of security, namely political, societal, economic, environmental and military, which serve as analytical tools or "ordering priorities ... woven together in a strong web of linkages".[5] The environmental sector, in particular, is about relationships between human activity and the planetary biosphere. The vertical hierarchy of analytical levels (from individual, state, regional to international) enables us to see how the referent objects of security[6] have evolved to include non-state actors. State or national security is redefined to encompass human security.

The central feature of the new security agenda is a revived interest in normative matters. It reflects an increasing concern for the human condition and focuses therefore on addressing the root causes of human insecurity rather than its consequences and on providing rather than maintaining security.[7] The term 'human security' is preferred, because it is more overtly linked to the normative notion of incorporating care into the security discourse. The term is also more appropriate for developing world conditions where non-military issues are more directly linked to an understanding of security.[8]

THE TREACHEROUS TERRAIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

The theoretical and operational linkages between security and changes in the environment appear to be quite obvious, because environmental degradation is in itself a severe threat to human security and all life on earth and can be both THE cause and effect of violent conflict.[9] However, environmental security as a concept raises many methodological and theoretical problems. A number of ambiguous areas are briefly highlighted.

The environmental sector is made complicated by the great variety of issues on its agenda. This necessarily requires prioritisation of issues in order to facilitate a coherent approach to dealing with the myriad of problems. Disruption of ecosystems and energy problems represent the most purely environmental issues, whereas population, food, and economic problems coupled with civil strife are at the bottom of the agenda. The range of possible referent objects is very large, ranging from the survival of individual species to more general issues such as maintenance of the planetary climate and biosphere.[10] The 'Green' perspective views the environment, Nature itself, as the primary referent of security while the neo-liberal school of thought regards the preservation of existing levels of civilisation (human enterprise) as the primary concern.[11] The matter of 'securitisation'[12] poses another problem. Some scholars warn that to classify the sectors of security as 'types' could lead to a militarisation of the environment. In the final instance, the assumption that all environmental problems are universal or global per se is questioned. The aim is not to argue that environmental problems are not integrated, but rather to highlight the fact that causes, effects and appropriate action are often much more localised. For instance, pollution-related problems require first and foremost joint action by the highly industrialised states. Some areas may be worse affected than others, e.g. while global warming is a global problem in a moral sense, the effects of the rise in the sea-level are more immediate for some vulnerable coastal areas. Given the mixed success of international environmental regimes, effective regional management is necessary and far more possible.[13]

The environmental security 'battle' has been fought on mainly conceptual grounds. To avoid perpetuating this state of affairs scholars[14] currently prefer to focus more on the empirical correlation between environmental factors and the most traditional indicators of insecurity: violent conflict and the outbreak of war. Along similar lines Graeger[15] argues that one should rather attempt to define environmental insecurity through analysis of relevant empirical case studies.

FEMINIST CONCEPTUALISATION OF SECURITY

Harmonising theoretical and practical concerns undoubtedly poses the biggest challenge to scholars of new security thinking. One way of achieving this is to consider the contribution feminism (and ecofeminism as a particular strand of feminism) can make to enhance human security and environmental discourse. This is motivated by the fact that, despite the growing acceptance of a more ambitious security agenda, the formal and consistent inclusion of gender relations on the security agenda remains lacking. All experiences are subsumed under a universal rubric of 'human' that is in fact an expression of the masculine experience.[16]

Another concern may relate to the epistemological diversity of feminism. In an ideological and disciplinary sense, feminist scholarship is far from monolithic and the three dominant theoretical-political feminist approaches, namely empirical feminism, standpoint feminism and post-modern feminism use gender in very different but mutually inclusive ways to promote their critical project of social change. The rich variety and disagreement within liberal, radical and post-modern feminist discourses, amongst others, should therefore be regarded as both the weakness and the strength of the feminist contribution. Diversity is a weakness because it may lead to a tendency to simplify the discussion by treating all 'feminisms' as the same, and thereby misrepresenting the contributions of feminists to the human security discourse. One of the main reasons for the difficulty in putting women and gender on the human and environmental security agenda, particularly in the developing world, may be related to a preoccupation with patriarchy and essentialising tendencies within the radical feminist paradigm. However, diversity is also a strength because feminist critiques draw on the diverse inputs of a variety of disciplines and engage in self-reflection on the meaning of feminism and the dangers of universalising assumptions generated by feminists themselves.

With this in mind the 'feminist contribution' to new security thinking therefore represents a fusion of principles from various strands of feminism and rests on the pillars of critique, care, comprehensive and co-operative security[17], as well as the interaction between theory and practice and between means and ends.[18]

Implications of ecofeminism for women in the developing world

Ecofeminism as a diverse yet interrelated set of theories[19] joins together two distinct but related movements, namely environmentalism and feminism. Feminists explore why 'women' are treated as inferior to men while environmentalists are interested in why 'nature' is treated as inferior to culture or science.[20] Ecofeminists assert that there exists a clear conceptual link between the inattention to environmental problems (the rights of nature) and the silence about women's rights in general and more specifically, the gender-differentiated effects of ecological insecurity on women as subsistence providers. In the developing world context, the relationship between human beings and nature and between women and nature are much more intimate, in the same way as the effects of environmental degradation on women in the developing world are more immediately and materially felt than in the developed world.

This material closeness to nature should however not be confused with a biological linkage in which women's reproductive capacity is explicitly linked to the life-giving properties inherent in nature. A more plausible explanation would be to highlight the historical, symbolic and practical connections which have been established between women and nature. Green[21] maintains that, since the philosophical outlook which has justified man's domination of nature is the very same as the one that has justified man's domination of women and the subsequent division of labour, the linkage represents - at most - a symbolic connection. In addition one could argue that a practical or material link exists between the intersection of the interests of feminists and ecologists. One such area relates to the correlation between women's right to choose whether or not to have children and the environmental problems caused by overpopulation.

The biological connection between nature and indigenous women in particular is criticised as essentialist, for it not only negates the differences between, but also romanticises women from marginalised societies. Such a view presumes an orderly world and overlooks the fact that women are diverse, particularly in respect of power. The rejection of modernity in favour of subsistence societies suggests that communal life is harmonious, and that patriarchy is a purely Western and/or static phenomenon. Ecofeminism elevates local, indigenous and women's knowledges and in so doing keep women in their 'natural' place, as subsistence producers in the developing world and as housewives in industrialised countries.[22]

Ecofeminism furthermore overstates women's capacity for solidarity by presenting environmental struggles in the developing world as women's or rather feminist struggles. Many women working on ecological issues do not necessarily have an explicit gender perspective. The Green Belt afforestation movement, launched in 1977 by the National Council of Women in Kenya, is a case in point where women through high-profile activism succeeded in mobilising men and women around ecological issues.[23] Although desirable in terms of social change, women's interests need not always coincide with gender interests. In many African countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Somalia, Zaire, Kenya, Angola and Ethiopia women's associations form part of an intricate social network.[24] But on a continent where, more often than not, women's organisations are relatively strong and feminist movements relatively weak, the scope of insecurity of women and the continent as a whole necessitates a more flexible interaction between strategic gender interests and practical women's needs.[25] This point also relates to the dubious practical relevance of abstract ecofeminist writing for women and communities in the South. Such proposals for social justice[26] do not really offer viable alternatives to people faced with the paradoxical situation of being simultaneously marginalised from the global economic system and encouraged in joining the global economy.

Despite the criticism the feminist discourse on environmental security does offer an enriching and alternative perspective of the relationship between man, woman and nature. The general contribution of feminism to the human security discourse lies in the fact that it exposes the very exclusive way in which the term 'human' is used. In a similar way ecofeminism seeks to expose the whole ecostructure of oppression.[27] By exploring the ecological consequences of, for instance, military security policy, it drives home the fact that nature also has rights and that any attempt at holistic thinking can only work if plans are based on constructive and equal partnerships and practical experience. While one cannot equate the environmental struggle with women's struggles, one has to acknowledge that women's involvement has contributed to their increased political involvement and to establishing an ecofeminist agenda in such struggles.[28] Ecofeminism can play an important mediating role between conventional (human-centred) and more radical (ecocentric) paradigms regarding environmental security.

Contextualised approaches for synthesising environmental security and ecofeminist discourses

The above-mentioned paradigms share a tendency to view issues within a universalist framework. The environmental security framework tends to view environmental problems as essentially global in character, and thereby subsuming the environmental security needs of particular groups such as women under the rubric of the universal male axiom. Ecofeminists tend to view women as having "a privileged understanding of the environment and an innate ability to care for it".[29] This shared tendency explains why these debates are conducted mainly at the conceptual level rather than offering concrete suggestions for addressing the security problems that arise from the intersection between environmental concerns and women's interests and security needs. Both discourses therefore display a lack of understanding of the contextual nature of security and its differential impact on different groups, particularly in the developing world.

A more concrete, pragmatic and relevant approach to using gender as a tool of analysis would involve viewing women's general security needs and women's relationship to nature specifically as contingent upon the institutional context. Such institutional contexts include, amongst others, natural resources, technology, the means of subsistence and gender specification.[30] Three examples from underdeveloped regions of the world illustrate the importance of a contextualised approach to analysis. The well-known Chipko (tree hugging) movement in India started in the Himalayas in 1973 when workers of a local cooperative called for Chipko rallies to protest the government policy of commercial logging. Villagers, the majority of whom were female, were successful in preventing the cutting of 300 trees. What is known today as an environmental movement started off with a very clear material motivation - commercial logging, deforestation, soil erosion and flooding directly threatened local women's livelihood and agricultural productivity. These women's gender roles and subsistence activities were directly tied to their roles as collectors of food, firewood and other forest products.[31] A similar sexual division of labour as well as the need to protect their means of subsistence motivated the women of the Green Belt movement in Kenya to initiate a series of reforestation campaigns. Unlike in Africa or in Asia, gender specification and tradition do not afford women a central role in agriculture in Latin America. Women have become involved in urban environmental initiatives, targeting problems such as solid waste management. For example, in Mexico women have introduced and successfully operated a waste management and recycling system in the town of Mérida (since 1978). Institutional context and not a universal closeness to nature is the determining factor for women's involvement in environmental struggle in the three cases mentioned.[32]

While I am not suggesting that the three examples discussed above represent a general or universal position, these cases do point towards the value of adopting a contextual approach. In this respect 'theorising' should be integrated into a practical approach that views women's relationship to the environment in the context of their multiple but interdependent roles as agents of ecological destruction, victims of ecological degradation, and managers of limited natural resources.

Womens destructive relationship with the environment

Attempts by the United Nations Women in Development (WID) initiative to mainstream women's issues through increased participation in decision-making, and better analysis and dissemination of research results did not succeed in integrating women into the development process. This 'add women and stir' approach imports women into preconceived projects which are often insensitive to local traditions and conditions.[33] In the process rural communities are impoverished and rural women are burdened with the responsibility of taking care of the environment when men migrate to the cities. African women's insecure position in the development process therefore impacts upon the ecological security of the family and the community as a whole.[34]

The WID position particularly perpetuates the view of women as agents of environmental destruction. Poverty, in this view, is the primary cause forcing African women in their traditional role as collectors of firewood, water and food to exploit natural resources. Farming steep hillsides and thereby aggravating soil erosion and flooding during heavy rains becomes, in this context, a matter of economic necessity. Energy in rural Africa is mainly biomass (wood for fuel, crop residues and manure), which accounts for 90 per cent of fuel consumed in sub-Saharan Africa. Exploitation of the environment in this way becomes a rational decision by the poor in the face of limited access to modern energy sources. The gathering of wood, for instance, is often named as a cause of deforestation. In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, about 73 000 women and children make a living by collecting firewood from protected forests and selling it in the city. Since women are overly represented among the poor, World Bank studies of forest destruction through firewood gathering have overstated women's complicity in this kind of ecological destruction. Women, in fact, collect mostly dead wood. It is ironic that a woman's social worth is measured in terms of how she exploits nature, how 'productive' she is in discovering arable land and firewood. By contrast, the male-dominated charcoal industry that provides urban areas with fuel contributes far more to deforestation.[35] Caroline New[36] captures the essence of this paradox: "Women may or may not be nurturing, but even where they are, environmental destruction may result from their care."

On a more commercial level women enter the labour market as plantation or forest industry workers, thereby contributing towards deforestation. Collecting, processing and selling forest products are often the only ways in which rural women can obtain a cash income. In Egypt's Fayoum province 48 per cent of women work in the forest industries. In Northeast Tanzania, in at least 50 per cent of the households surveyed, one member of each household was active in the forest industry.[37]

Women as victims of ecological degradation: fiction or fact?

There exists an almost symbiotic relationship between being an agent and being a victim of ecological insecurity. Women suffer most as a result of ecological devastation. Collecting firewood and carrying water are strenuous and time-consuming tasks. In some parts of Africa women spend eight hours per day collecting water. Not only are the water-collection points situated far away, but the pumps are also often inaccessible and difficult to operate and repair. Moreover, the quality of the water is frequently very poor, which poses a general health risk. Girls start at a very young age to carry water. This unremitting burden can distort their pelvis, making the recurrent cycles of pregnancy and childbirth more dangerous.[38]

A one-sided presentation of women's attitudes toward the environment as largely benign absolves women of all responsibility for environmental degradation. Women's knowledge of the local environment must be protected against the hostile aspects of the global capitalist economy, but it would be wrong to present it as superior to men's knowledge and scientific knowledge. Such tendencies to polarise can only be counterproductive.[39]

BEYOND DESTRUCTIVENESS AND POWERLESSNESS: WOMEN AS RESOURCE MANAGERS AND CONSERVATIONISTS

Since women in Africa are often seen as part of the environmental problem, their role as conservationists and managers of natural resources is often overlooked. As the primary producers of agricultural products, as those who control the storage and the use of water in large parts of Africa, women are ideally placed to play a leading role in the process of sustainable development. Most African women in rural communities experience and interact with the natural environment on a daily basis. These women have an expert knowledge of local water conditions and indigenous plants for medicinal use and of seasonal conditions for growing crops.[40] Such skills are passed on from generation to generation. Their holistic understanding of the intimate relationship between environmental, socio-cultural and economic issues such as population growth is demonstrated in the West African Sahel where women, through their involvement in the control of desertification, played a pivotal role in the change of male attitudes towards large families.[41]

In Africa, in particular, behaviour towards the environment is quite overtly culture-driven[42] and has to be reckoned with in any analysis of human security on the continent. In Mali, for instance, only women have access to the Karite tree and its resources. The institutional context is therefore often closely linked to specific temporal, spatial and cultural contexts. Folkviews justify participation of certain groups in certain activities. In Burkina Faso, for example, women collect firewood and water; men lead prayers and name the newborn. Folkviews explain why certain types of wood must be gathered and why the naming of babies can only be executed on certain days of the week. Even the formation of women's groups and their specific way of engaging in environmental activity are rooted in culture and tradition. Taking the cultural context into consideration not only helps analysts to better understand the dynamics of such activities, but, more importantly, plays a pivotal role in the successful outcome of such campaigns. In Kenya, women's groups form part and parcel of the tribal custom and exist as avenues for social expression and mutual socio-economic help. The Green Belt Movement allows each group to organise its own campaign based on its own needs and this has contributed substantially towards their overall success. Even in India, the Chipko movement itself is based on the legend that the women of Bishnoi sacrificed themselves to save their trees from elimination by clinging to them.

The above examples thus suggest that traditional culture can work towards improving the security of women, men and the community as a whole. Feminists, amongst others, however remind us that in most cases the linkage between culture and gender specification is more enabling for men than for women. Nevertheless, in some cases men are also constrained by their socially and culturally determined gender roles. For instance, in Luapula, a matrilineal society in Zambia, women have sole rights to land.[43]

Many ecologically sound community development projects have been organised by African women. By 1992, women of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya have planted seven million trees. It is significant that in the district of Kiambu, where the rate of deforestation has slowed down, women represent almost 70 per cent of farm labour.[44] Another example of an environmental movement driven by women is the grassroots Women's Tree Planting Movement in Uganda.

Women's contribution to sustainable ecological practices must be recognised and rewarded through, amongst others, policy decisions on local, national and regional level. Addressing women farmers' economic insecurity by providing appropriate technological assistance and credit facilities are some of the ways in which the prospects of environmentally sound agricultural practices may be enhanced. In order to ensure that women's needs are met at all levels, prolonged and stable interaction between women's groups and official structures is a prerequisite.

A top-down global discourse on women's and gender issues in the form of policies and declarations work in tandem with bottom-up, localised responses. A theoretical dissection of the nexus between human security, the environment and women forms the backdrop against which a contextualised approach can take shape. A focus on the institutional context is useful, firstly, to fully understand the institutions and processes at work in relation to the environment. Secondly, it helps to highlight gender-specific attitudes and actions towards the environment and use of natural resources within different historical and cultural milieus. Thirdly, and following from the previous point, it can contribute towards legitimating gender as an area of study in the environmental security domain. Lastly, since a contextual approach places women's relation to the environment in its historical and cultural context, it facilitates appropriate policy approaches and options.

To summarise, the overall value of this approach in any discourse or area of study lies in the fact that when gender is used as a tool of analysis, it remains sensitive to the multiplicity and complexity of the various contexts. This creates the 'perfect' setting for exposing and redefining power relations.

Developing an environmental ethic, which seeks to respect the fractious holism of the ecosystem as having value in itself and not simply because of its possible utility or threat to human beings, may ultimately be the goal to strive for. For this to happen, however, a much more nuanced view of human security is required.

[1]. See the contribution of critical security studies in this regard.

[2]. See B. Buzan. People, States and Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991; B. Buzan, O. Waever & J. de Wilde. Security. A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner, 1998.

[3]. H. Solomon & J. Cilliers. "People, Poverty and Peace" in H. Solomon & J. Cilliers (eds.). People, Poverty and Peace: Human Security in Southern Africa. ISS Monograph Series 4. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, May 1996, p.6.

[4]. Ibid.

[5]. Buzan, 1991, p.20.

[6]. Levels of analysis refer to spatial locations from macro to micro, where both sources of explanation and outcomes can be located. Referent objects of security are things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival. See in this regard Buzan, 1991, p.187; Buzan et.al., 1998, p.1-8 & p.36.

[7]. The Bonn Declaration (1991) defines human security as "the absence of threat to human life, lifestyle and culture through the fulfilment of basic needs'. See H. Solomon. "From Marginalised to Dominant Discourse: Reflections on the Evolution of New Security Thinking". In H. Solomon & M. van Aardt (eds.). 'Caring' Security in Africa: Theoretical and Practical Considerations of New Security Thinking. ISS Monograph Series 20. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, February 1998, p.7.

[8]. Particularly in the developing world, the state has often been the root cause of insecurity among its people, for instance through non-intervention in domestic violence, and its definition of rape and patriarchal law. It is therefore imperative that the broadening of the security concept should challenge the status quo. See K. Booth & P. Vale. "Security in Southern Africa: After Apartheid, beyond Realism". International Affairs 71(1995)2, April 1995, p.293.

[9] N. Graeger. "Environmental Security?". Journal of Peace Research 33(1996)1, pp.109-111.

[10]. Buzan et.al., 1998, pp.23, 71-76.

[11]. Buzan defines environmental security as "concerning the maintenance of the local and the planetary biosphere as the essential support system on which all other human enterprises depend". (See Buzan, 1991, pp.19-20.) This clearly implies that the primary concern is with human enterprise and not about threats to nature as such. See in this regard Buzan et.al., 1998, pp.76, 84.

[12]. Securitisation is a more extreme version of politicisation. Any public issue can be located on the spectrum ranging from non-politicised (state has no role to play) through politicised (requiring government action) to securitised (as dealing with an existential threat, thus requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure. See Buzan et.al., 1998, pp.23-24.

[13]. Ibid., pp.84-91.

[14]. See the special issue on environmental conflict of the Journal of Peace Research 35(1998)3, p.275 in particular.

[15]. Graeger, pp.113-115.

[16]. I. Bakker. "Identity, Interests and Ideology: the gendered terrain of global restructuring". In S. Gill (ed.). Globalization, Democratization and Multilateralism. New York: United Nations University Press, 1997, p.130.

[17]. The principle of common security is underpinned by the practice of cooperation and interdependence as replacing confrontation in resolving conflicts of interest. Co-operative security embodies the same values as common security but appears to have a more favourable resonance to practitioners. See F. Olonisakin. "Rethinking Regional Security in Africa: An Analysis of ECOWAS and SADC". Strategic Review for Southern Africa 20(1998)2, p.51.

[18]. H. Hudson discusses the feminist contribution at length in "A Feminist Reading of Security in Africa". In H. Solomon & M. van Aardt (eds.). 'Caring' Security in Africa: Theoretical and Practical Considerations of New Security Thinking. ISS Monograph Series 20. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, February 1998, pp.35-38.

[19]. M. Somma and S. Tolleson-Rinehart define ecofeminism as "a set of theories variously claiming that, because of biological determinism, reproductive and maternal roles, the oppression of patriarchy and women's more holistic spiritual connection to nature, or the alternative perspective that feminism can provide, women are more concerned about [closer to] the environment than are men". ("Tracking the Elusive Green Women: Sex, Environmentalism, and Feminism in the United States and Europe". Political Research Quarterly 50(1997)1, p.153.

[20]. M. Mellor. "Myths and Realities: A Reply to Cecile Jackson". New Left Review 217, May/June 1996, p.137.

[21]. K. Green. "Freud, Wollstonecraft, and Ecofeminism: A Defense of Liberal Feminism". Environmental Ethics 16(1994)2, pp.123-124, 132-133.

[22]. M. Molyneux & D. L. Steinberg. "Mies and Shiva's 'Ecofeminism': a new testament?". Feminist Review 49, Spring 1995, pp.91-95, 97; Mellor, pp.132-137.

[23]. Ecofeminists defend themselves against this charge by saying that one does not have to be a feminist to display ecofeminist traits. Elements of feminism and gender consciousness are present among women who do not explicitly identify with the feminist project. See Somme and Tolleson-Rinehart, p.155.

[24]. N. Chazan, R. Mortimer, J. Ravenhill & D. Rothchild. Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa. Second edition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1992, pp.205-206.

[25]. Strategic gender needs are essentially feminist as they challenge women's subordinate position in society. In contrast, practical gender (or rather women's) needs are more tactical and usually non-feminist in nature because they are formulated from women's concrete experiences, that is, the effects of women's engendered status. See C. O. N. Moser. "Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Needs". In R. Grant & K. Newland (eds.). Gender and International Relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991, pp.90-91.

[26]. S Hallock Johnson. "An Ecofeminist Critique of the International Economic Structure". In M.K. Meyer & E. Prügl (eds.). Gender Politics in Global Governance. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999, pp.227-229; F. d'Eaubonne. "What could an eco-feminist society be?", pp.3-4, where 'solutions' range from delinking from the global economy and returning to a subsistence culture to practicing participatory democracy.

[27]. G. Gaard. "Women, Animals, and Ecofeminist Critique". Environmental Ethics 18(1996)4, p.441.

[28]. Mellor, p.135.

[29]. E. Zein-Elabdin. "Development, Gender, and the Environment: Theoretical or Contextual Link? Toward an Institutional Analysis of Gender". Journal of Economic Issues 30(1996)4, p.929.

[30]. Gender specification denotes the social designation of individuals to particular gender roles, according to the structures of patriarchal power which determine the position of men and women in all walks of life. Gender specification is particularly evident in the economic system where the division of labour and ensuing access to property and wealth have a direct bearing on gender-different security needs. See Zein-Elabdin, pp.930,939.

[31]. Jackson also points out that women in this movement were part of a broader peasant protest - defending economic interests rather than trees as such. Refer to C. New. "Man Bad, Woman Good? Essentialisms and Ecofeminisms". New Left Review 216, March/April 1996, pp.83-84.

[32]. Zein-Elabdin, pp.935-937.

[33]. Ibid., pp.931-932.

[34]. G. Kirk. "Women Resist Ecological Destruction". In G. Ashworth (ed.). A Diplomacy of the Oppressed: New Directions in International Feminism. London: Zed Books, 1995, p.71.

[35]. Zein-Elabdin, p.933.

[36]. New, p.82.

[37]. A. Rodda. Women and the Environment. London: Zed Books, 1991, p.47; S. Calvert & P. Calvert. Politics and Society in the Third World: An Introduction. London: Prentice Hall, 1996, p.239; Zein-Elabdin, p.933.

[38]. Rodda, pp.52-53.

[39]. Zein-Elabdin, p.935; Mellor, p.136.

[40]. The World Bank in its 1998/1999 Report "Knowledge for Development" (New York: Oxford University Press) acknowledges that local and traditional knowledge is now used more extensively in the promotion of sustainable farming practices. See pp.101,110.

[41]. Rodda, pp.64,68,71; Calvert & Calvert, p.239.

[42]. Kirk, p.72.

[43]. Zein-Elabdin, pp.939-941.

[44]. Ibid., p.936.

Back to [the top of the page] [the contents of this issue of MOTS PLURIELS]