124
5
ipalities were men. The structure chosen for the Dovrefjell Council made it therefore
more difficult to attain gender equality than, for instance, if two political representatives were to be chosen from each municipality (Svarstad et al. 2006).
After our presentation, one of the men of the Council spoke out and proposed that
the Council adopted a resolution stating that gender research is not wanted and ought
to be stopped. This was an administrative representative from one of the municipalities. Another representative, a mayor, told us that the focus on gender equality was
meaningless, because men had been responsible for decision-making on the use of
outfields and mountains for thousands of years, and there was no reason to change
this. However, the only two local women politicians at the meeting argued that the
gender focus was appropriate. Probably in order to avoid public attention, the motion
was withdrawn, and the minutes of the meeting did not even mention this discussion.
The lack of fulfilment of the legal requirements of gender equality in public conservation boards and councils continued until a Minister of the Environment several years
later, in 2009, finally required that the Gender Equality Act should be met also in these
fields. However, Lundberg (2018) shows that local boards for conservation management in Norway still tend to have men in leadership positions.
Conclusions
Feminist political ecologies can be mould together through combinations of various elements from feminist theory and political ecology. In this chapter, we have focused on local conservation governance, with presentation of studies from Norway,
Senegal, India and Nepal. By looking for explanations at different levels of governance, we have shown how the lack of local gender equity may be a total result of
exercises of power at and between different levels.
Power in environmental issues is often gendered. The case study from Norway
illustrates a version of intersectionality where women in rural areas are side-lined by
local power elites of men together with the national government and media.
? Questions
1. How may feminist political ecologies be defined?
2. Do you think that there are reasons to believe that the country where you live
(or another country of your choice) has a high or low degree of gender equality
in local environmental issues, and what do you think can explain this situation?
3. Search for information about gender representation in a local council or board
on an environmental issue, and discuss what the reasons behind the gender
(in)equality might be.
4. Do you think gender representation in decision-making on environmental
issues matter? Why, or why not?
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies
5
ipalities were men. The structure chosen for the Dovrefjell Council made it therefore
more difficult to attain gender equality than, for instance, if two political representatives were to be chosen from each municipality (Svarstad et al. 2006).
After our presentation, one of the men of the Council spoke out and proposed that
the Council adopted a resolution stating that gender research is not wanted and ought
to be stopped. This was an administrative representative from one of the municipalities. Another representative, a mayor, told us that the focus on gender equality was
meaningless, because men had been responsible for decision-making on the use of
outfields and mountains for thousands of years, and there was no reason to change
this. However, the only two local women politicians at the meeting argued that the
gender focus was appropriate. Probably in order to avoid public attention, the motion
was withdrawn, and the minutes of the meeting did not even mention this discussion.
The lack of fulfilment of the legal requirements of gender equality in public conservation boards and councils continued until a Minister of the Environment several years
later, in 2009, finally required that the Gender Equality Act should be met also in these
fields. However, Lundberg (2018) shows that local boards for conservation management in Norway still tend to have men in leadership positions.
Conclusions
Feminist political ecologies can be mould together through combinations of various elements from feminist theory and political ecology. In this chapter, we have focused on local conservation governance, with presentation of studies from Norway,
Senegal, India and Nepal. By looking for explanations at different levels of governance, we have shown how the lack of local gender equity may be a total result of
exercises of power at and between different levels.
Power in environmental issues is often gendered. The case study from Norway
illustrates a version of intersectionality where women in rural areas are side-lined by
local power elites of men together with the national government and media.
? Questions
1. How may feminist political ecologies be defined?
2. Do you think that there are reasons to believe that the country where you live
(or another country of your choice) has a high or low degree of gender equality
in local environmental issues, and what do you think can explain this situation?
3. Search for information about gender representation in a local council or board
on an environmental issue, and discuss what the reasons behind the gender
(in)equality might be.
4. Do you think gender representation in decision-making on environmental
issues matter? Why, or why not?
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies