Mind the gap: institutional considerations for gender-inclusiveclimate change policy in Sub-Saharan AfricaAnesu Makinaa and Theresa Moyob

aThe Albert Luthuli Centre for Responsible Leadership, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University ofPretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; bTurfloop Graduate School of Leadership, University of Limpopo, Polokwane, SouthAfrica

ABSTRACTThis paper positions climate change against the backdrop of gender,premised on the understanding that neither climate change impacts norresponses are gender neutral, therefore institutions need to respondaccordingly. Institutions play a central role in facilitating policy effectsand forming major nodes of interaction as well as determining theaccentuation of risk. Drawing on examples from different parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, the paper seeks to elucidate why women should beplaced at the heart of climate change interventions. Establishing theappropriate connections between gender and climate change willenhance the opportunities for problem-solving and can increase theefficiency and effectiveness of policy-making. The gendered aspects ofclimate change and environmental relations are analysed by using anAfrican feminist approach as the theoretical framework to expand andexpound upon this position. This paper also investigates institutionalmatters pertaining to the management of environmental resources andhighlights some of the constraints that need to be overcome in order toensure the inclusion and empowerment of women in the managementof these resources. It concludes by calling for a thorough understandingof the gender-based power relations in the agendas and activities ofenvironmental governance institutions at all levels in society.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 6 November 2013Accepted 3 May 2016

KEYWORDSGender; environment;climate change policy; Africa;institutions

Introduction

This paper positions climate change against the backdrop of gender, premised on the understandingthat neither climate change impacts nor responses are gender neutral. By using a gendered prismwith a focus on women, the paper argues that there is a need to consider institutional interplayand fit in order to push the boundaries of policy-making. Institutions play a central role in facilitatingpolicy effects, forming major nodes of interaction, and determining accentuation of risk, thereforethere is a need to consider institutional arrangements. Drawing on examples from different partsof Sub-Saharan Africa, the paper seeks to elucidate why women should be placed at the heart ofclimate change interventions. Establishing the appropriate connections between climate changeand gender will enhance the opportunities for problem-solving and can increase the efficiencyand effectiveness of policy-making.

Among the plethora of environmental concerns facing the African continent and its peoples,climate change stands as a leading socio-environmental challenge of the twenty-first century dueto its intergenerational global scope, trans-boundary effects and its far-reaching and unpredictableconsequences on economic and socio-ecological systems. If unabated, its effects will have severe

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Anesu Makina anesupmakina@gmail.com

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, 2016VOL. 21, NO. 10, 1185–1197http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1189407

negative impacts on the most vulnerable populations, in particular those with a high dependency onnatural resources (Tadesse 2010). These negative effects may possibly enlarge development dispar-ities and widen inequality within and between countries, as well as exacerbate human insecurity. Fur-thermore, the role of industrialisation activities cannot be overlooked as a cause of the quagmire thathumankind finds itself in. The desire for developed countries to continue along their current devel-opment trajectory, coupled with the aspirations of developing countries to grow industrially, hasbrought about conflict relating to who has to reduce pollution and by extension curb industrialgrowth. The elimination of current environmental challenges remains a key focus in the global nar-rative on climate change alongside the prevention of the emergence of new problems, given thatcurrent growth pathways are environmentally unfriendly. However, as Opotow and Weiss (2000) suc-cinctly put it, in addition to the mediation of global commons, there is conflict over the legitimacy ofrepresentation due to the diversity of legitimate but voiceless stakeholders. These include humanand non-human stakeholders (such as wildlife) and marginalised populations (women, indigenouspeoples, etc.). This paper looks at institutional matters pertaining to managing the causes andimpacts of climate change and highlights some of the constraints that need to be overcome inorder to ensure the holistic inclusion of women. The paper focuses on national and community insti-tutions. By primarily using a feminist analysis, this paper emphasises the implications of genderrelations in the control and management of natural resource entitlements as these relate tocoping with climate change. The main argument of this paper is that the effectiveness of climatechange policies can be enhanced by the inclusion of gender relations in institutional frameworks.The state of the art on gender and climate change predominantly takes the form of research onpoverty and inequality with a focus on agriculture, on the one hand, and disaster, on the other(Demetriades and Esplen 2008). There is also a plethora of work found in grey literature in theform of reports by international non-governmental organisations such as the International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI) and by inter-governmental organisations such as the Food and Agri-culture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Although this work focuses on women, it does littleto examine the institutional context in which gender relations are situated and perpetuated thereforeproviding the legitimacy for this paper.

Institutional frameworks, which are important in mediating policy responses, exist at multiplenested levels, in the form of government (local and national) and social (community-based) aswell as traditional and religious. Institutions are not gender neutral in their approaches; indeed, fem-inist scholars such as Taylor (2004) note that institutions are gendered, often shaped by patriarchalvalues and norms which over time, are produced, then reproduced, forming the standard or “theway things are done”. Further to this, institutional interplay can reveal not only gendered experiencesbut also how women resist, negotiate, influence and accommodate structures that exert dominance.Points of intervention need to be cognisant of this co-production of gendered values and normsagainst the need for policy interventions that will benefit women. The paper, which adds Africanvoices to this discussion, draws its feminist articulation from African feminism. Broadly, African fem-inism aims to formulate change from within cultures and traditions as well as to identify other patri-archies that hinder women’s potential beyond the traditional roles of wife and mother (Mikell 1997,Atanga 2013). Taking this perspective provides the basis by which to not only understand the impor-tance of the gender questions within institutions but also the reason radical (feminist) approachescould have limited application. It is important to emphasise that as a concept, African feminismfinds expression in the different cultures and traditions across the different ethnic groups; therefore,it is not a monolithic concept. Instead, African feminism should be seen a struggle for gender equalitywithin and against cultural norms which shape the everyday.

The paper draws examples from Sub-Saharan Africa. This is not to suggest that the paper will nothave broader appeal and relevance; instead, it should be considered that as a continent, Africa lendsitself to diversity in analysis since it spreads over a vast spatial scale and includes different countries,languages, ecologies, political systems, histories and ethnic practices and groups.

1186 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

The structure of the paper is as follows: it begins by discussing gender, environment and climatechange, followed by a contribution on entitlements. The discussion on institutions precedes theconclusion.

Gender, environment and climate change in Africa

Environmental resources are integral to the sustenance of the humankind. Most interactions with theenvironment take place through the use of biological ecosystem goods and services such as water,soil, forest resources, food provision and marine life. Climate change is set to alter the provision ofthese goods and services due to less predictable weather patterns that will in turn change rainseasons and amounts, alter temperatures, and change agricultural planning, planting and production.Fonjong (2008) adds that because human beings are extracting environmental resources at a fasterrate than what can be replenished, in trying to find a resolution to these problems, gender has beenhighlighted as playing a mediating role. With reference to Cameroon, Fonjong (2008) notes that menand women interact with the environment differently due to their varied needs and roles. Women, forinstance, are responsible for water collection so they are impacted more by changes in river flows(Fonjong 2008). Turning to women’s gardens in some areas of the Gambia, scholars Schroeder andSuryanata (1996) discuss intra-household conflict, emphasising that these gardens, as sites of house-hold reproduction, are vulnerable due to male property holders looking to convert them into fruitorchards. At the core of arguments about property ownership is the role of patrilineal propertyrights that compromise women’s asset ownership (Mollett and Faria 2013). Environmental decisionsand actions are ensconced within gendered power and political relations, which in turn shape boththe social and ecological outcomes of any interventions. Perhaps more importantly, the source ofenvironmental discordance is attributed to unequal power relations between men and women, ageneral non-recognition of women’s household activities and the unequal distribution of incomeand income-earning opportunities within households (Bryant 1998). Remedying the gender imbal-ance is challenging due to the paucity of women’s input in national, regional and global environ-mental frameworks. The role of women’s agency has been acknowledged in literature, albeit in anessentialist manner, to assess how gender can contribute to the construction of knowledge andenvironmental rights and responsibilities (Bryant 1998). Women’s agency is perhaps where Africanfeminism draws some of its legitimacy, because it advocates for ways in which to empowerwomen within their cultural contexts. Because culture is not static, the struggle for equity can beattained within this domain.

The gender and climate change nexus is derived from the legitimacy of the information stated inthe foregoing; yet, analysis is still predominantly limited to comparing males and females. The neatcausality continues to occur in current literature about the link between gender and climate changeultimately due to women’s intimate relationship with the natural environment. Arora-Jonsson (2011)notes that the gender and climate change connection is compromised by a paucity of evidence anddata, thereby resulting in cynicism by the broader research community. There has been an upsurge inscholarly work relating to gender and climate change with reference to Africa (see Denton 2002,2004, Terry 2009). Grey publications emanating from the continent that provide empirical datainclude four country case studies commissioned by the Heinrich Böell Foundation (on Botswana,Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa) and reports by the New Partnership for Africa’s Develop-ment’s Gender Climate Change Agriculture Support Programme (NEPAD GCCASP) (on Cameroon,Malawi, Ethiopia, Niger and Rwanda). These grey publications are particularly important becausethey show how the gender and climate change nexus is framed on the continent by developmentagencies.

For the purposes of this paper, gender will be considered from a two-dimensional standpoint.Firstly, as a definition, gender refers to the rules, norms, customs and practices by which the biologicaldifferences between males and females are translated into socially constructed roles and responsibil-ities. The manner that these norms are socially constructed results in the two genders being valued

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1187

differently and afforded unequal opportunities and life chances (Kabeer 2003, p. 2). Secondly, asnoted by Resurrección (2013), gender can be understood as an analytical variable in determining pro-cesses of ecological change, viable livelihoods and the prospects for human security and risk. In itself,gender is not a binary condition. It is reinforced by and intersects with numerous factors includingage, class, marital status, wealth, employment and geographic location. As with social relations,gender is context dependant, culturally specific and dynamic. While gender is about the interactionsbetween men and women as determined by the prevailing cultural and traditional norms, there is abias towards gender being about women because statistics point to this group as comprising themajority of the poor. Aspects such as women’s poverty relative to men’s and the absolute levels ofpoverty among women have different implications for policy (Kabeer 2003). Research indicatesthat where circumstances are similar between women and men, women are generally more disad-vantaged, due to limited access to and control over resources. Politics and structurally unequalpower relations contribute to the construction of gender relations and in the context of climatechange, these two factors mediate winners and losers in policy changes. This paper serves as astep towards navigating the social divisions that lead to the exclusion of women in local environ-mental management processes.

Gender is not about women suffering more than men (in numbers and/or in intensity). Rather, agender lens can offer a way to analyse the different social processes that lead men and women intoand out of poverty and their differentiated coping mechanisms. Interventions that can improve andempower men will not necessarily have the same impact on women (Razavi 1998). This is becausepolicy responses are not neutral due to the sociocultural contexts in which these are embeddedand understood. Priorities and even attitudes differ between men and women regarding, forinstance, risk perception. Research by Edvardsson and Hansson (2013) reveals that men are willingto accept technologies that are perceived as riskier compared to women. While policies may beclothed in neutral language, their superficial task of promoting efficiency or effectiveness gives thepolicies a fundamentally political flavour, making them a political arsenal (Wedel et al. 2005).Gender, however, is not the only discriminator to climate change. Poverty, rural–urban location,skills and experience, and income status all play a role in coping with climate change. Access to insti-tutions is another factor and it will be discussed as the paper progresses. Relating to vulnerability,structural and group characteristics such as culture, race and age are not consistent predictors butthey often intersect with gender to produce vulnerability and exclusion from policy spaces. Thesesame intersections influence well-being and security. This emphasises the argument that althoughclimate change is a global phenomenon, its impact manifests at local scale (Agrawal 2010).Notably because a plethora of resources exist on the linkage between gender and the environment,energy, water, conflict and disasters, more analysis is needed to make the connection betweengender and climate change. It is therefore important to pose political questions about structuralinequalities that embed practices of the everyday, which in turn continue to breed and invariablyproduce spaces of institutional and environmental conflict.

Major publications on gender and climate change (see Denton 2002, 2004, Terry 2009) focus onmaking women central to climate change often justify this through gender roles, on the presumptionthat women are more vulnerable than men due to their greater dependence on natural resources(through the household chores of fetching water, cooking and securing fuel wood) (Denton 2002).A main thread in these publications is a focus on rural women and the gendered duties that makethem vulnerable to a changing climate because climate-sensitive sectors (agriculture, farming,water and fuel energy) have gender dimensions. An example from Tanzania, where the scarcity offuel wood due to deforestation has become apparent to those who cannot afford to use alternativesources of fuel, women have been forced to walk farther thereby reducing the amount of time theyare able to spend on other productive activities (Denton 2002). Narratives such as the ones abovehave been perpetuated over the years to exemplify the relationship between women and nature.However, such one-dimensional interpretations do not provide policy-makers the necessarymileage with which to design concrete policies because systems around, for instance, the collection

1188 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

and use of firewood, differ by country and context. While there is a need to secure energy throughfirewood collection by women, in some cases, men are involved through the cutting down of trees forcharcoal which is then sold to urban dwellers. Using this example not only highlights the challengesin teasing out environmental matters and gender dynamics, but also illuminates how narratives areconstructed, then permeate policy spheres without critically analysing the plurality of factors that notonly cause demand for wood fuel but also continue to make it attractive. Anecdotal research fromZambia suggests that scarcity of affordable alternatives to charcoal correlated with increased defor-estation, higher demand for fuel wood and increased urban growth (Misana 1999).

Fonjong (2008) contributes another dimension to natural resource management. In relation toNorthern Cameroon, he adds that in addition to deforestation, the desertification of farmlands haspushed women into marginal lands that are less fertile. This adversely impacts on crop outputsand has resulted in children suffering from malnutrition and disease. He notes that in this particularregion, traditional practices that discriminate against women are particularly acute. For instance,large tracts of fertile land and forest that are designated traditional shrines lie fallow thereby limitingthe land on which women can farm. Similarly, women are prevented from farming near shrines andtraditional sites because their presence is considered taboo. These observations, which were made in95% of the villages in the research area, highlight the traditional and cultural practices that contributeto relegating women to degraded land (Fonjong 2008). Research indicates that women are respon-sible for producing approximately 70% of the staple food consumed in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet landownership and management remain a key barrier to their agricultural activities (Negin et al. 2009).Another basis for considering gender in environmental matters as pointed out by Resurrección(2013) is the value of women’s indigenous knowledge. Indeed, numerous examples are oftengiven to elucidate the intimate relationship between women and nature, including case studies onfailed development projects due to practitioners ignoring women’s knowledge on where to findwater, weather forecasting and harvesting techniques. Nevertheless, the narrative that womenfrom the global South are the hardest hit by increasing environmental degradation has gained cur-rency, firmly embedding women as a major constituency in the sustainable use of natural resourcesboth as principal caretaker and victim. This universalisation has been rejected by scholars such asMohanty (1988, p. 68) who observe that when women from the global South become a “homo-geneous sociological grouping characterised by common dependencies or powerlessness (or evenstrengths), problems arise as we say too much and too little”.

The relationship of women as closer to nature or women-as-victim-then-as-agent stereotypeemerged in the 1970s and then morphed into a material portrayal, which saw women as adverselyaffected by environmental degradation due to the largely universal gender division of labour (Resur-rección 2013). This intrinsic connection between women and nature, which has since been dismissedby some as an environmental “fable”, has been neatly transposed onto climate change discussions,with potentially dismal results due to the failure to address the pitfalls of the “women and nature con-nection” faced within the environmental sphere in the 1970s (Leach 2007). This scepticism is notintended to frivolise the inclusion of gender in climate change processes. Rather, it is to stress theimportance of understanding that climate policy processes and decision-making are rarely genderneutral. This understanding is a key in catalysing efforts to avoid the negative impacts of climatechange responses such as maladaptation (Otzelberger 2011). The focus of climate change policyshould be on women’s agency or ways in which to increase this agency. Recent literature cautionsagainst repeating stereotypes in climate politics due to the implications of this on related policyand programmes (Resurrección 2013). As such, scholars such as Denton (2002) assert that buildinga comprehensive gendered analysis of climate change requires more resources; the result willenable policy-makers to put in place relevant measures, targeted at minimising the vulnerability ofthe women and men. Although the body of literature is growing, much of it is limited andbounded within the discourses of vulnerable or virtuous women (Arora-Jonsson, 2011). Moosa andTuana (2014, p. 690), who review literature and map research on gender and climate change, con-clude that most literature is grouped under four main categories: the production and reception of

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1189

climate change knowledge; gendered impacts of climate change; problems of agency; and rethinkingontology and obligation.

Entitlements and gender

Most discussions about gender in the context of climate change have focused on highlighting andsubsequently exploring the particular vulnerabilities of women to climate change impacts. Inresponse to climate change, this emphasis on vulnerability has led to a focus on women asvictims at the receiving end of the policy stick and far away from the negotiating and policy-making spaces. This framing alone is without due consideration of the broader political economicbackdrop that positions African women (and those from the global South in general) as vulnerable.Focusing exclusively on vulnerability detracts attention from the ways in which women activelyengage in environmental management (Arora-Jonsson 2011). It is also important to avoid portrayingwomen from one region of the global South as representative of the entire global South femalepopulation (Mohanty 1988). Instead of unpacking power relations and the gendered structure ofsociety which perpetuates this vulnerability, processes instead are confined to the domesticsphere, which is deemed the most “relevant” to women. Consequently, household energy andsolar cook stoves often feature as popular project responses of low-carbon development initiativesto assist women in tackling climate change (Otzelberger 2011).

Entitlements are the control over alternative commodities that can be used by a person, given therights and opportunities one has (Sen 1983). Kelly and Adger (2000) assert that determining levels ofvulnerability to climate stress involves defining an “architecture of entitlements”, which constitutesthe myriad of factors that shape the availability of entitlements, their evolution over time, and thebroader political backdrop of their formation and distribution. As a broad concept, entitlementsunderpin climate change and gender relations in tandem as literature often refers to the role ofunequal power relations as a major cause of inequality. Research shows that in many instances,women do not have control or ownership over resources such as land, houses and implements oflabour; this renders them vulnerable to climate change. This is not to say that ownership of resourcesis the only marker of vulnerability, rather, it is one of a plethora of vulnerability indicators. Obstacles topolicy uptake, for example, can render one vulnerable. These obstructions include illiteracy, ill health,lack of access to resources as well as a lack of civil and political freedoms. Nevertheless, the burden ofhousehold survival still falls disproportionately on women. In the face of environmental changes, theinequality between women’s and men’s perceived responsibilities for coping with poverty also seemsto be growing unmatched with increases in rewards or entitlements reflecting this (Chant 2008). It istherefore imperative to situate and analyse women as they dynamically respond to multifacetedenvironmental and climatic conditions, and consider their engagement in social relationshipswithin the institutions rather than a priori perceptions based on gender roles (Resurrección 2013).Using the illustration of education in a resource-poor setting where women and girls are responsiblefor household chores such as the collection of water and firewood, they are likely to be burdened insearch of water and food if these resources become scarce under worsened climate scenarios. Usingthe situation provided above in the context of the equality of agency, both male and female childrenwill have the opportunity to go to school but because the female child may also have the burden ofhousehold work, care work and chores, she maybe be unable to take up the opportunity or farepoorly due to less time to study after school. This may result in feedback mechanisms such as alower investment in female education; this in turn reinforces and perpetuates gender inequality. Like-wise, a male child may have to herd livestock, thus have certain limitations. The notion of entitle-ments has since evolved to include subcomponents that can be viewed as a set of utilities that aparticular resource or sector contributes to the security and well-being of, for instance, the environ-ment. This evolution expounds on rights as having the ability to be “claimed” rather than just legally“owned”. What this aspect puts forward is that claims can be contested, something which scholars

1190 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

should be cognisant of when utilising the entitlement approach in an analysis of African societies(Ribot 2010).

The notion of entitlements provides principles for a flexible approach that allows for policy-makersto analyse the diverse challenges that poor people face. It contrasts with often rigid policy prescrip-tion that can be orthodox in nature (Fukuda-Parr 2003). The concept of entitlements is in distinct con-trast with resource-based theories. The latter do not acknowledge that people differ in their abilitiesto convert resources into capabilities due to personal, social or environmental factors, such as tra-ditions, social norms, skills and experience, customs, legal rules and public infrastructure (Robeyns2003). A gendered scope of climate change should therefore reflect the wider social relations under-pinning resource allocation because entitlements are closely accompanied by capabilities, or theability to take advantage of said entitlements. Feminist economists acknowledge that individualsand groups make choices and exercise agency, but suggest that this is done within the confinesimposed by institutions and the structures, rules, norms, assets and identities in their society(Kabeer 2012). However, agency, which is defined by Kabeer (1999) as the capability to self-defineaspirations and take appropriate actions, is not necessarily equal across gender.

Institutional frameworks in a changing climate

It is widely accepted that good governance within institutional structures is important for mitigatingvulnerability or improving adaptive capacity to climate change. Young (2002) defines institutions inthe context of environmental change as “sets of rules, decision-making procedures, and programsthat define social practices, assign roles to the participants in these practices, and guide interactionsamong the occupants of individual roles”. This definition, which is broad and all encompassing, canbe applied at multiple scales to include the multilateral organisation such as the United Nations,municipalities, marriages and traditional councils. The advantage of applying the Young definitionis that it can be used to analyse “fit and interplay” between institutions and arrangements atvarious levels. Institutions are not monolithic; they comprise national and local governments, tra-ditional authorities, community and religious organisations, informal institutions as well as profitand non-profit organisations. What is crucial to underscore is that disorganised and unprepared insti-tutions generally imply that the country or locale will have a lower adaptive capacity vis-à-vis an insti-tution with good organisation and preparedness. Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) recognises that African countries are more vulnerable to climate changedue to a lack of institutional capacity, usually in the form of lacking capacity of government insti-tutions (Metz et al. 2007, Parry et al. 2007). This capacity deficit can take many forms including insuffi-cient resources, knowledge or even interests. According to Tompkins and Adger (2005), althoughresponse capacity may actually exist within institutions or individuals, it can be guided by the insti-tutional environment as well as individual behaviour and choice. Cultures and traditions furtheramplify the inability of States to respond to the needs of the citizenry – the static division of rolesand responsibilities by gender in turn complicates policy-making and uptake. This section haslooked at institutions and governance facets that pertain to the management of climate changeand highlights some of the constraints that need to be overcome in order to ensure the inclusionand empowerment of disadvantaged groups such as women, which is closely related to womenbeing perceived as agents of change in the face of a changing climate rather than victims ofglobal environmental changes.

Newell (2004, p. 121) asserts that “policy integration is perhaps the greatest contribution that gov-ernments can make towards providing climate protection and it is also potentially the least economi-cally costly”. Climate change is often presented as best resolved through technical and economicsolutions. The conventional development view is that good governance will empower institutionsand this will result in better ability to cope with climate change (Newell, 2004). It is imperativethat international, regional, national and local-level institutions include the poor and disenfranchisedin their processes and clarify the cases where women in developing countries employ agency.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1191

Women are usually considered victims, passive beneficiaries of patriarchal benevolence rather thanactive actors, yet empowerment, adaptation and mitigation efforts would need to emphasise theiragency (Taylor 2004). While it appears that women will be severely hampered in their ability totake positive action, there is diagnostic evidence that counters the victim narrative to showwomen utilising their agency and even undertaking so-called men’s work when faced with littleoption. In Mozambique, some rural communities face increased migration by men to neighbouringSouth Africa. This migration has left many single-headed households and increased the amount ofproductive labour that women perform because they have to undertake the male responsibilitiesof charcoal production and livestock rearing. Furthermore, the reduced crop yields have womenresorting to brewing traditional beer for additional income. However, the void left by men has inad-vertently strengthened women’s position in the local organising bodies (Ribeiro and Chaúque 2010).Agency is not linear in the manner that it is exercised as illustrated above, because of the entitle-ments, resource availability and cultural confines. The nature of an African feminist approach in ananalysis on entitlements is useful because African feminism pursues female agency and autonomy,despite its pro-gender unification and pro-male essence (Mekgwe 2008). With reference to the cen-trality of traditional authorities at the local level to resource management, Fonjong (2008) asserts thatdespite the acknowledged importance of women’s knowledge about natural resource management,in Cameroon, traditional authorities at all levels do not pay sufficient attention to the call for gen-dered facets. Even when policies and process are enacted to benefit women, these tend toenhance rather than alleviate the burden on women, a failure that can be attributed to the insti-tutional cultures in charge of implementation. This observation adds weight to the importance ofinstitutional reform in order to truly transform gender relations in Africa. The complexity of traditionalAfrican cultures is thereby considered and understanding is sought without vilification, noting thatacross class, women will interact with culture differently. The gendered institutions of governmentand other institutions are not as easy to change as noted by Arora-Jonsson (2011); it is thereforesimpler to associate gender with poverty, hence the preference of projects and programmes as sol-utions to gender inequalities rather than overhauling institutions and by extension, challengingpower structures. Institutions not only shape society’s impact from climate change, but also influencethe adaptation options available for communities and individuals (Agrawal 2010). Resource distri-bution is a key factor in climate change management; institutions are largely responsible for this dis-bursement and distribution as well as mapping the linkages. Gender also plays a role in resourcedistribution as well as continued patterns of uneven and unequal distribution and access (Bob andBabugura 2014). It is therefore possible for the gender agenda to shape climate change becausethe parameters of climate change are still being defined.

The point of departure on action around climate change should address the underlying issues onwomen’s agency by political institutions such as male-dominated political parties, social institutionssuch as the family, and social norms such as women’s responsibilities for care work (Fukuda-Parr2003). A literature review of articles on gender and climate change reveals that the majority of theinformation pertains to the domestic domain. There is scant information on challenging the insti-tutions that govern gender relations and vulnerability, which is a key principle in how policy playsout because gender interacts intimately with the impact, responses and outcomes of all programmeand policy responses; gender organises the household, community and the world. Climate changetherefore poses a great challenge for weak institutions because of its unpredictability, the complexityof vulnerability and the dynamic nature of social life. Policies and institutional approaches may begender sensitive, yet the outcomes are not. Indeed, if policies unfolded in the linear manner withwhich they are designed, it would not necessitate an overhaul of the system; instead, because ofthe interplay between and within institutions and actors, policies do not achieve their desiredresults. In order to make an institution more gender responsive, a thorough understanding of gen-dered power relations and how these interact with the work of the institution is vital. Likewise, itis crucial to analyse the implications of current and future policies on the everyday and future liveli-hoods of those involved. Furthermore, policy recommendations should not add an extra burden on

1192 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

women’s domestic duties, compromise incomes or rely on women’s roles in the home by harnessingthis into unpaid labour.

The role of institutions as a focus of vulnerability often lies between two interpretations namely,outcome vulnerability such as policy reforms to offset the negative impacts of, for example,decreased future agricultural yields, and institutional changes which are related to contextual vulner-ability such as water privatisation that affect the ability of a community to respond to drought(O’Brien et al. 2007). Institutional capacity and building resilience are important aspects of adaptivecapacity and reducing vulnerability. Recent studies on climate change acknowledge that socio-pol-itical and institutional factors fluctuate substantially at a subtle scale (Agrawal 2010). It is thereforeimportant to continue this discussion in the context of gender in Africa because contextualstudies frequently lead to findings regarding institutional and socio-economic constraints to localresponses, that is, an identification of the factors that prevent coping and adaptation (O’Brienet al. 2007). This will assist in moving the discussion away from the parochial understanding ofactions and agency, which in the forgoing were shown to be multifaceted and situation dependant.

In terms of institutions governing women, a number of African countries have ministries and Statedepartments that are dedicated to gender issues. Writing in 2000, Sen notes that institutions (in theform of ministries, departments, special branches) responsible for gender matters are often handi-capped by relatively small sizes, newness, uncertain futures and poor access to resources (2000).Empirical evidence illustrates that the situation has not changed radically. These institutions areriddled with numerous constraints which severely undermine not only their current focus of workbut also the ability to take on a new area such as climate change. Drawing from personal previousexperience working in the gender field, it was well known that the structure of gender ministrieshas been said to hamper implementation of programmes because in many cases, these ministriesare “bundled together” with other “special projects” such as social welfare, children, youth, sportsand disability. For example, Zimbabwe has the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Gender and CommunityDevelopment (Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development of Zimbabwe2015), Uganda has the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (Ministry of Gender,Labour and Social Development of Uganda 2015) and Lesotho has the Ministry of Gender, Youthand Sports (Ministry of Gender, Youth and Sports of Lesotho 2015).With all these mandates compet-ing for a limited budget, gender equality remains nominal. Moreover, as with climate change, genderis a cross-cutting issue, so ideally gender focal points should be placed within the different nationaldepartments in senior positions with a sufficient budget. This, however, is not the case; gender min-istries often operate in isolation from the relevant ministries, thereby posing a challenge for theimplementation of their policies. In some situations, gender is treated as rhetoric or women’s “talkshops”. Perhaps an important aspect that should not be neglected is the importance of politicalwill in ensuring that institutions execute their mandates. As Wendoh and Wallace (2005) observe,even in Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) whose work is to promote gender, staff interactionsreflect gendered societal cultural expectations and norms.

At the national level, gender equality is enshrined in the constitutions of a number of Africancountries but the extent to which the legal provisions benefit women depends upon the balanceof power and political will to initiate and sustain the required change. Often, implementationtakes an “add gender and stir” approach. Meanwhile, gender roles, patriarchal attitudes and powerrelations have not transformed in many African countries. Women are often limited in decision-making processes, a common observation in even the most democratic of countries. An exampleis the first draft of the South African national climate change policy, which, according to newsreports, did not contain the words “women” or “gender” (Paliza 2010). This is not to say that thewords themselves would have resulted in outcomes that favour both men and women, but showsthat the policy was possibly treating both men and women as having equal opportunities, agencyand regarding them as equally impacted by climate change, a fact that has been disputed in thispaper. While the absence of keywords may be viewed as a simplistic manner of conducting an analy-sis, it is equally naïve to assume that this absence implies gender neutrality. Kronsell (2013) highlights

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1193

that “silences” or the lack of conscious and explicit references to gender within institutions or climatestrategies do not signify the irrelevance of gender. Rather, the pitfall is that there is no suggestion thatdealing with climate change might require a different approach that looks to the role of institutionsbeyond the household for resolve (Okali and Naess, 2013). Policy should be framed against the back-drop of existing realities of social institutions and arrangements and display an adequate understand-ing of these, so not to disadvantage certain groups. Gender neutrality may gesture ill regard for thesocial implications of climate change outcomes and the implications for poor men and women or forthe ways in which people’s political and economic environments influence responses (MacGregor,2010). Substantiating this point, Kabeer (2012) notes that individuals and groups make choices butsuggests that these take place within the confines imposed by the structural distribution of rules,norms, assets and identities prevalent in society. This means that within policies, even if constructedin a manner that could accommodate both men and women, there may be an issue of inequality ofopportunity and agency that imposes limitations.

Even though many countries in Africa have ratified treaties, conventions and protocols thatpromote gender equality in most spheres of life, dual legal systems exist, which have led to formalcommitments to gender equality being circumvented in favour of customary institutions. SouthAfrica, for instance, which has one of the most progressive Constitutions globally, also accommodatestraditional and customary authorities, which allows for political quiescence. This is a positive devel-opment which points to the fact that the political context which women have to navigate in times ofconflict is not simple because of the duality in legal frameworks. Culture is often exploited to propa-gate trimming the rights of women; an example of this was mentioned in the foregoing in the case ofCameroon where traditional rules hamper women’s farming in a rural setting. In an urban setting, thelandmark case of Magaya vs Magaya in Zimbabwe illustrates sufficiently the discordance betweencustomary and civil laws. In this case, Venia Magaya inherited her father’s estate as the firstbornchild since there was no legal will. Her younger half-brother contested the inheritance and won ata magistrate court. The supreme court of Zimbabwe upheld the ruling, citing that the constitutionpermits such types of discrimination as “it is the nature of African society” (Knobelsdorf 2006,p. 750). This infamous case encompasses gender aspects of property rights and power relations aswell as culture and traditions that challenge institutional policies and legal frameworks. It furthershows that irrespective of the laws in place, cultural norms and institutions are still observed tothe disadvantage of women even when a country is signatory to international conventions suchas the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).These parallel systems need to be continually captured in both theory and praxis if reform is totake place. Moreover, the steps that women take in order to navigate this acrimonious institutionalterrain should not be taken for granted if positive action around climate change is to be trulyeffective.

Cultures and traditions amplify the inability of states to respond to the needs of the citizenry; thestatic division of roles and responsibilities by gender in turn complicates policy-making and uptake.As noted by Alston (2014), policies can produce gender inequality, therefore analysis of potential out-comes needs to take place. The struggle to transform institutional cultures remains a challenge,especially in traditional institutions where the rules and regulations are not open to democratisationprocesses. Perhaps the most important takeaway regarding implementation is that the culturalcontext in which mainstreaming takes place needs to be interpreted against the goals defined atthe national level.

Concluding remarks

This paper considered climate change in Sub-Saharan with a particular focus on institutions. The aimwas to caution against consistently portraying women as marginalised in decision-making spheres,and as less able to influence programmes and policy choices without addressing the wider politicalenvironment affecting this marginalisation. An African feminist prism was employed as a suitable

1194 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

medium to situate this discussion. Concepts of vulnerability relevant to gender were highlighted andthe notion of entitlements explored. The conception and subsequent paucity of institutional capacitywere addressed by interrogating institutional arrangements and interplay. While it would have beenworthwhile to focus on the need for climate policies to look at the future social dynamics such asurbanisation to underpin adaptation processes, this was beyond the scope of this paper. Criticalthought needs to continue in the direction of deconstructing current epistemologies about Africaand constructing knowledge that is relevant and applicable. Research on gender and climatechange should be nuanced and textured in order to empower not only policy-makers but alsothose who are interested and invested in the progress of Sub-Saharan Africa. Often, in policy work-shops, phrases such as “African countries have beautiful policies, but implementation remains a chal-lenge” are heard. Policy deficits therefore arise from poor institutional interplay and the negation ofthe interaction of gender within institutions. This invariably mediates policy outcomes. Policies there-fore need to come under scrutiny in order to bring to the fore the fractures in institutions that oppressand disempower women. The next step in this process would be to remedy this through reform.

This paper makes an impassioned plea for continued research in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular,to continue along the lines of African feminist thinking, by bringing the voices of the marginalisedinto the fore. Collective action by working with a diversity of constituencies (in this case, women)and transversal policy planning is a fitting way in which to navigate this tricky terrain by engagingall relevant stakeholders and users of the natural environment. By not considering an array ofsectors and constituencies, problem-solving will result in “negative feedbacks”, in other words, byreinforcing negative policy results in one area due to trying to find resolve in another area.

Whichever paths are chosen to address institutional and policy capacity, this paper maintains thatmore critical analysis is needed to ensure that women are included. The paper concludes by assertingthat the institutional arrangements of particular locations and the context determining resource allo-cation need to be understood if gender is to be firmly entrenched within the climate change regime.The paper calls for further research on women’s agency within informal and formal institutional struc-tures and a critical lens by which to analyse this agency. Ultimately, this paper suggests that integrat-ing gender concerns and perspectives is essential to ensuring sustained inclusive action aroundclimate change. This should be done by reviewing failures of the past and taking into cognizancenew knowledge in order to forge a better path ahead. Constructive progress will ensure that nation-ally prescribed solutions will not limit space for local-level adaptation but create space for individualactors to interpret policy in a manner that suits their locale. If research is not harnessed, gender equi-table climate change policies will remain but a mirage.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the team at the Africa Institute of South Africa (AISA) in the Human Sciences Research Council(HSRC) for hosting the National Workshop on Gender and Socio-Cultural Inclusion in Global Change Research from whichthis article emanated. Special thanks are due to Professor Heidi Hudson who provided feedback on the various drafts ofthis manuscript. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for the useful comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding information

We express our heartfelt gratitude to the South African Department of Science and Technology and the South AfricanNational Research Foundation for funding the workshop.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1195

References

Agrawal, A., 2010. Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. In: R. Mearns and A. Norton, eds. Social dimensionsof climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warming world. Washington: World Bank Publications, 173–198.

Alston, M., 2014. Gender mainstreaming and climate change. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 287–294.Arora-Jonsson, S., 2011. Virtue and vulnerability: discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental

Change, 21 (2), 744–751.Atanga, L., 2013. African feminism? In: L. Atanga, S. Ellece, L. Litosseliti, and J. Sunderland, eds. Gender and language in Sub-

Saharan Africa: tradition, struggle and change (Vol. 33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301–314.Bob, U. and Babugura, A., 2014. Contextualising and conceptualising gender and climate change in Africa. Agenda, 28 (3),

3–15.Bryant, R.L., 1998. Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22

(1), 79–94.Chant, S., 2008. The ‘feminisation of poverty’ and the ‘feminisation’ of anti-poverty programmes: room for revision? The

Journal of Development Studies, 44 (2), 165–197.Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E., 2008. The gender dimensions of poverty and climate change adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 39

(4), 24–31.Denton, F., 2002. Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter? Gender & Development,

10 (2), 10–20.Denton, F., 2004. Gender and climate change: giving the “latecomer” a head start. IDS Bulletin, 35 (3), 42–49.Edvardsson Björnberg, K. and Hansson, S.O., 2013. Gendering local climate adaptation. Local Environment, 18 (2), 217–

232.Fonjong, L.N., 2008. Gender roles and practices in natural resource management in the North West Province of

Cameroon. Local Environment, 13 (5), 461–475.Fukuda-Parr, S., 2003. The human development paradigm: operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist

Economics, 9 (2–3), 301–317.Kabeer, N., 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment.

Development and Change, 30 (3), 435–464.Kabeer, N., 2003. Gender mainstreaming in poverty eradication and the millennium development goals: a handbook for

policy-makers and other stakeholders. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.Kabeer, N., 2012. Women’s economic empowerment and inclusive growth: labour markets and enterprise development.

International Development Research Centre Discussion Paper [online], 29/12, 1–70. Available from: https://www.soas.ac.uk/cdpr/publications/papers/file80432.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2015].

Kelly, P.M. and Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adap-tation. Climatic Change, 47 (4), 325–352.

Knobelsdorf, V., 2006. Zimbabwe’s Magaya decision revisited: women’s rights and land succession in the internationalcontext. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15, 749–795.

Kronsell, A., 2013. Gender and transition in climate governance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 7, 1–15.Leach, M., 2007. Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: how a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and

Change, 38 (1), 67–85.MacGregor, S., 2010. ‘Gender and climate change’: from impacts to discourses. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 6 (2),

223–238.Mekgwe, P., 2008. Theorizing African feminism(s). Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy/Revue Africaine de Philosophie,

XX (1–2), 11–22.Metz, B, et al., eds., 2007. Contribution of working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on

climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mikell, G., 1997. African feminism: the politics of survival in Sub-Saharan Africa. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania

Press.Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development of Zimbabwe, 2015. Available from: http://www.

women.gov.zw/ [Accessed 23 April 2015].Misana, S.B., 1999. Deforestation in Tanzania: a development crisis? The experience of Kahama District (Social science

research report series number No. 13). Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa.Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.

Mohanty, C.T., 1988. Under western eyes: feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 1, (30), 61–88.Mollett, S. and Faria, C., 2013. Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum, 45, 116–125.Moosa, C.S. and Tuana, N., 2014. Mapping a research agenda concerning gender and climate change: a review of the

literature. Hypatia, 29 (3), 677–694.Negin, J., et al., 2009. Integrating a broader notion of food security and gender empowerment into the African Green

Revolution. Food Security, 1 (3), 351–360.Newell, P., 2004. Climate change and development: a tale of two crises. IDS Bulletin, 35 (3), 120–126.

1196 A. MAKINA AND T. MOYO

O’Brien, K., et al., 2007. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy, 7(1), 73–88.

Okali, C. and Naess, L.O., 2013. Making sense of gender, climate change and agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: creatinggender-responsive climate adaptation policy. FAC Working Paper 57. [online] Available from: http://www.future-agricultures.org/publications/research-and-analysis/working-papers/1727-making-sense-of-gender-climate-change-and-agriculture-in-sub-saharan-africa/file [Accessed 27 May 2015].

Opotow, S. and Weiss, L., 2000. New ways of thinking about environmentalism: denial and the process of moral exclusionin environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 475–490.

Otzelberger, A., 2011. Gender-responsive strategies on climate change: recent progress and ways forward for donors.Institute of Development Studies, 1–58.

Paliza, K., 2010. South Africa: climate change policy ignores women farmers [online]. Available from: http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/08/south-africa-climate-change-policy-ignores-women-farmers/ [Accessed 23 April 2015].

Parry, M.L., ed., 2007. Climate change 2007 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: working group II contribution to thefourth assessment report of the IPCC (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Razavi, S., 1998. Gendered poverty and social change: an issues paper. UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 94, September 1998.United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Geneva: Switzerland

Resurrección, B.P., 2013. Persistent women and environment linkages in climate change and sustainable developmentagendas. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40, 33–43.

Ribeiro, N. and Chaúque, A., 2010. Gender and climate change: Mozambique case study. Heinrich Böell Stiftung SouthernAfrica. Cape Town [online]. Available from: https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/assets/boell.de/images/download_de/ecology/Mozambique.pdf [Accessed March 2016].

Ribot, J., 2010. Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: toward multiscale, pro-poor climate policy. In: R. Mearns, and A.Norton, eds. Social dimensions of climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warming world. Washington: World BankPublications, 47–74.

Robeyns, I., 2003. Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.

Schroeder, R. and Suryanata, K., 1996. Gender and class power in agroforestry: case studies from Indonesia and WestAfrica. In: R. Peet and M. Watts, eds. Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social movements, London:Routledge, 188–204.

Sen, A., 1983. Development: which way now? The Economic Journal, 93 (372), 745–762.Sen, G., 2000. Gender mainstreaming in finance ministries. World Development, 28 (7), 1379–1390.Tadesse, D., 2010. The impact of climate change in Africa. Institute for Security Studies Papers, (ISS paper 220) [online].

Available from: http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/Paper220.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2015].Taylor, V., 2004. From state security to human security and gender justice. Agenda, 18 (59), 65–70.Terry, G., 2009. No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues. Gender & Development, 17 (1), 5–18.Ministry of Gender, Youth and Sports of Lesotho, 2015. Youth and sports [online]. Available from: http://www.gov.ls/

gender/ [Accessed 23 April 2015].Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N., 2005. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environmental

Science & Policy, 8 (6), 562–571.Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development of Uganda, 2015. Labour and social development [online]. Available

from: http://www.mglsd.go.ug/ [Accessed 23 April 2015].Wedel, J.R., et al., 2005. Toward an anthropology of public policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 600 (1), 30–51.Wendoh, S. and Wallace, T., 2005. Re-thinking gender mainstreaming in African NGOs and communities. Gender &

Development, 13 (2), 70–79.Young, O.R., 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 1197

Copyright of Local Environment is the property of Routledge and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.