Abstract
We critically discuss the impact of sustainable development initiatives in Kerala, India, on biodiversity and on women farmers in the matrilineal Adivasi community of the Kurichya-tribe in Wayanad. By contextualizing development programs regarding the specifically gendered access to land, division of labor, distribution of knowledge and decision-making power, we situate our analysis within the theoretical framework of feminist political ecology. We first outline women’s gaining of social and political space in local self-government institutions (Panchayath) and then critically discuss the impacts of women’s farming groups (Joint Liability Groups: JLGs). Decentralization and development programs have aimed at empowering women and reducing poverty through improved food security. However, little success has materialized, as patriarchal power structures concerning decision-making processes as well as control over the most valuable resources (land and rice) and traditional knowledge have been maintained. Whereas women’s self-help groups (Kudumbasree) in Kerala have enhanced their position, women’s farming groups (JLGs), by contrast, have brought little betterment. In some cases they have even downsized women’s management and knowledge of resources related to agriculture and do not integrate or enhance Kurichya women’s knowledge. As some women are now introducing high-yielding rice seeds and fertilizer and as it is impossible for them to control land and get access to traditional rice seeds—the domain of men—we contest the notion of women being considered the preservers of agrobiodiversity. We argue, rather, that the construction and transformation of ecological traditional knowledge is highly dependent on the gendered multi-scaled power structures of state and community.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These groups live in social and economic interdependency with Hindu castes and Christian as well as Muslim populations. The relationship between the heterogeneous indigenous groups is marked by hierarchy, with owning land being the indicator for hegemony (Münster and Suma 2012).
Panchayath literally means assembly (ayat) of five (panch). In the past, Panchayaths were traditional institutions of high-caste people and were expected to be fair and just in their role of dispute settlement.
The constitution of independent India in 1950 did not give these institutions a central place but rather stated that they should function as units of local self-government, meaning that local authorities could assert certain legal rights and were eligible to, e.g., raise local taxes (Buch 2010: 12). In this regard, Panchayaths have more recently acquired a new meaning as institutions of local self-government (LSG) (Oommen 2004).
Gramam in Malayalam—the local language in Kerala—means village.
With the Amendment of Article 243(D) of the Panchayathee Raj Act in 1994, Kerala increased the ratio of reserved seats for women from 33 to 50% to enhance equity in political participation and development.
Today, there are 1,940,000 NHGs, over 17,000 ADSs and 1061 CDSs subsumed in the Kudumbashree program.
During festivals and rituals, all invited elderly male members occupy the space of the front yard and eat, chew tobacco, and talk there.
All names of interviewees have been anonymized.
For more information see www.kudumbashree.org.
Moreover, as women are not allowed to enter the front yard of the joint family household or to enter the granary, the Odekkaran has to take rice from its storage place and then hand it over to the Odekkarathi for daily cooking.
Abbreviations
- ADS:
-
Area Development Samithi
- CDS:
-
Community Development Samithi
- DfID:
-
British Department for International Development
- FAO:
-
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
- FPE:
-
Feminist Political Ecology
- JLGs:
-
Joint Liability Groups
- NHG:
-
Neighborhood Groups
- NPP:
-
National Perspective Plan for Women
- SC:
-
Scheduled Castes
- ST:
-
Scheduled Tribes
- UNECED:
-
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
- WED:
-
Women, Environment and Development
- WID:
-
Women in Development
References
Agarwal, B. 1994. A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agarwal, B. 1992. The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–158.
Bhaskaran, S., S. Jayasree, and A. Vijayan. 2006. Women in Panchayathi Raj. Thiruvananthapuram: Sakhi Women’s resource Centre.
Biehl, J. 1991. Rethinking ecofeminist politics. Boston: South End Press.
Buch, N. 2010. From oppression to assertion: Women and Panchayats in India. London: Routledge.
Chakko, K.D. 1994. Kurichyarude lokam. Trivandrum: Kerala Bhasha Institute.
Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2004. Introduction: repositioning feminisms in development. IDS Bulletin 35(4): 1–10. (Special Issue Repositioning Feminisms in Gender and Development).
Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2007. Gender myths and feminist fables: Struggles for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change 38(1): 1–20. (Special Issue).
Dankelman, I., and J. Davidson. 1988. Women and environment in the third World: Alliance for the future. London: Earthscan.
Dankelman, I. 2003. Introduction: Gender, environment and sustainable development: understanding the linkages. In Natural resources management and gender: A Global source book, ed. M. Valk, S. Cummings, and H. van Dam, 13–20. Oxford: Oxfam Publisher.
Elmhirst, R. 2011. Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2): 129–132.
Elmhirst, R., and B.P. Resurreccion. 2008. Gender, environment and natural resource management: New dimensions, new debates. In Gender and natural resource management: Livelihoods, mobility and interventions, ed. B.P. Resurreccion, and R. Elmhirst, 3–22. London: Earthscan.
FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Building on gender, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge: A training manual. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y5956e/y5956e00.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
Fulvio, M. 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n5/full/7400693.html. Accessed 1 July 2015.
Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3): 151–156. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/indigenous_knowledge_for_biodiversity_conservation.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
Howard, P. 2003. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. London: Zed Books.
Jackson, C. 1993. Women/nature or Gender/history? A critique of ecofeminist “development”. Journal of Peasant Studies 20(3): 389–419.
Jewitt, S. 2000. Unequal knowledges in Jharkhand, India: De-romanticizing women’s agroecological expertise. Development and Change 31(5): 961–985.
Kumar, N.A., G. Girigan, and P. Parameswaran. 2010. Genetic erosion and degradation of ecosystem services of wetland rice fields: A case study from Western Ghats, India. In Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective, ed. S. Lockie, and D. Carpenter, 137–153. London: Earthscan.
Leach, M. 2007. Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change 38(1): 67–85.
Menon, V. 2012. Cultural knowledge and heritage conservation at the cross-roads of museum and anthropology. Humankind 8: 51–60.
Mies, M., and V. Shiva. 2014. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.
Münster, U., and V. Suma. 2012. In the jungle of law: Adivasi rights and implementation of forest rights act in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly 47(19): 38–45.
Oommen, M.A. 2004. Deepening decentralised governance in rural India: Lessons from the people’s plan initiative of Kerala. http://www.csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/11.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.
Padmanabhan, M. 2011. Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity: A feminist social-ecological approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40(6): 968–976.
Ravivarma, K.T. 2004. Matrilini: Tribal matriliny and northern practices. Thiruvanandapuram: State Institute of languages.
Rocheleau, D. 1994. Participatory research and the race to save the planet: Questions, critique, and lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2): 4–25.
Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. 1996. Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience. London: Routledge.
Rodda, A. 1991. Women and the environment. London: Zed Books.
Shand, H. 1997. Human nature: Agricultural biodiversity and farm-based food security. Ottawa: RAFI—Rural Advancement Foundation International.
Shiva, V. 1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. London: Zed Books.
Sontheimer, S. 1991. Women and the environment: A reader. London: Earthscan.
Suma, T.R. 2014. Customary vs state laws of land governance: Adivasi joint family farmers seek policy support. The case of Kurichya joint families in Wayanad, Southern India. Rome: International Land Coalition.
Valdivia, C., and J. Gilles. 2001. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 5–9.
Vayaleri, K. 1996. Kurichyarude jeevithavum samskaravum [The life and culture of Kurichyas]. Trivandrum: Current Books.
Vedavalli, L., and N.A. Kumar. 1998. Case study. Wayanad, Kerala. In Gender dimensions in biodiversity management, ed. M.S. Swaminathan, 96–106. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.
Véron, R. 2001. The “new” Kerala model: Lessons for sustainable development. World Development 29(4): 601–617.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suma, T.R., Großmann, K. Exclusions in inclusive programs: state-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India. Agric Hum Values 34, 995–1006 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9758-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9758-4