8/6/2019 rocheleau

1/10

A G R I C U L T U R E A N D H U M A N V A L U E S - W I N T E R - S P R IN G 1 99 1

Gend er, Ecology, and the Scien ce o f Survival:Stories and Lessons from K enya

Dianne E. Rocheleau

Dian n e E . Roch e leau i s an Ass i stan t Profes sor in th e G rad u ate S ch ool o f G eograp h y at Clark Un ivers i ty in W orces ter ,M A. S h e h o ld s a Ph . D. in G eograp h y w i th a min or in S ystem~ Ecology from th e Un ivers i ty o f F lor id a . S h e teach escou rses on soc ia l fores try , trop ica l eco logy , p o l i t ica l eco logy , gen d er an d d eve lop men t . H er research focu ses on soc ia lan d eco log ica l d imen s ion s o f fores try an d ru ra l lan d scap e ch an ge in Eas t Afr ica an d Cen tra l Am er ica . S h e con d u ctedresearch on lan d u s e an d w atersh ed man agemen t in th e Dom in ican Rep u b f ic from 1979 to 1981 , work ed as a s en iorsc ien t i st a t th e In tern at ion al Co u n c i l for Research in Agrofores try ( ICRAF) in Na irob i from 1983 to 1986 , an d wasa Fores try an d Agr icu l tu ra l Program O ff icer for th e Ford Fou n d at ion in Eas tern an d S ou th ern Afr ica from 1986 to1989 .

Dr . Roch e leau i s s en ior au th or o f Agroforestry in Dryland Africa an d h as au th ored s evera l ar t ic le s an d b ookch ap ters on w om en , trees , ten u re an d lan d u se . S h e s erves on th e ad visory b oard s o f th e Lan d Ten u re Cen ter , th eW i l d l i fe a n d H u m a n N e e d s P r o g r a m o f th e W o rm W ild l i fe Fu n d , an d Society an d N atural Resources Journal. She isa l so a mem b er o f th e Nat ion al Acad em y of S c ien ces (NRC/BO S T ID) rev iew p an e l on In tern at ion al Fores try Research .

AB ST RA CT Su stainab le developm ent and biodiversity initiatives increasingly include ethnoscience, ye t the gend ered natureof rur al peo ple 's knowledge goes largely unrecognized. The paper notes the current resurgence of e thnoscience researchand states the case or including gende red knowledge a nd skills, sup ported by a bri ef review of relevant cultural ecology andecofeminist ie ld studies. The author argues the case ro m the poin t of v iew of be tter , m ore complete sc ience a s wel l as romthe ethical imp erative to serve wo m en' s interests as the "dai ly manag ers of the Hying environment". In the interests of bothobject ives the pap er a dvocates an e thnoscience research approach based on empow erment of rural people , rather thansimple ex traction of the ir knowledge. The Kenyan case study of wom en's agroforestry wo rk ol low s their response to thedrought an d am ine of 1985 an d chronicles the unfolding discovery of wom en's ecological , pol i t ical , and social science asgend ered su rvival skil ls. The cas e is re-counted a s a story, in keeping with an explicit choice to learn through participationand to report throug h storytel ling. The experience of rura l wom en and researchers during the droug ht provid es severallessons o r bo th grou ps abou t their respective knowled ge systems, their agroforestry wor k, an d the relationship of both tolocal and nat ional pol i t ical economy.

In trod u ct ionSustainabil ity and participation m ay becom e the tw omo st wide ly invoke d and d i lu ted words that i ssue f romt he mou t hs , pens , a nd o t her "word p rocesso r s" o f deve l -opment planners and scientists during this decade. Thisnew wa ve o f en t hus iasm fo r " su s ta i nab le" deve l opmen thas broug ht a co ncurrent upw el l ing of interest and act iv-i ty in b iodivers i ty and indigenous knowledge. Yet , re-searchers and practi t ioners have paid l i t t le at tention to

gender and sustainabil ity. This paper exam ines the placeo f rural w om en 's ec ological science in th i s purpor ted seachange w i th in the dev elopmen t process . I t al so reversesthe question and considers the possib le consequences o fth i s new t rend for rural women 's fu tures and those o ftheir communities (Red clifl , 1987). I t question s the sup-pression, neglect , or even the extractive collection o fw om en 's ethno-scicntific information, an d explores thecomprehension and em powerm ent of thei r own science

1 5 6

8/6/2019 rocheleau

2/10

of survival."Sus ta inable" D e v e l o p m e n t a s O p p o r t u n i t y a n dC h a l l e n g eThe current concern for envi ronment, development , andculture reflects a historical re-discovery of the connec-t ions be tween econo mies and ecosystems,be tween peop leand the i r envi ronments, and b etween present decisionsand futures possible. The "international scientific com -muni ty" i s poised uneasi ly a t the turning po int be tweenthe expanding world of Darw in 's voya ge on the Beagleand the shrinking biologica l comm uni ty of No rmanM yers ' imperi led "ark" (M yers, 1979). Wh i le we arc s t il lmaking entries in the catalog o f l ife forms on earth, w e areincreasingly awa re that wh olepages, som e yet unrecorded,are be ing erased even as we w ri te .Rapid socia l , economic , and ecologica l change inmany regions also threatens to undermine the founda-tions and unravel the fabric of indigenous science andpract ice under a w ide range of ecologica l and econom icconditions. A lthoug h less well-pu blicized than the ex-tinction of spec ies, this is no les s a loss to our future l ivesand sc ience . Am ong the dead and disappeared sc iencesa l ready bur ied by care less development we have lostmuch insight that could inform our on-going search forhumane and eco logica l ly feasible futures (B rokensha e tal., 1980). Enviro nmen tal and so cial scientists alike nowaddress "developm ent" as residents of a shr inking planetfaced with the erosion of genetic and cultural diversity.Ironically, the urgent concern over global environ-menta l change and genet ic erosion has spawned a ser iousat tempt to deal wi th the com plexi ty of local cultural andecologica l rea l i ties in the farm and forest comm uni t ies ofAfrica, Asia, and Latin America. Biological field scien-t i s ts have fo r centur ies depended on the skil l and kno wl-edge of indigenous "guides", collectors, hunters, andinformants. N ow , there is a grow ing awa reness thatindigenous sc ience and prac t ice m ay contribute far mo reto the cmren t understanding and to the future survivaland use o f a wide a r ray o f ecosys t ems . L ikewi se , someforesters and agronom ists have discovered the va lue oflocal knowled ge of species, environments, and prod uc-tion in the search for mo re productive, sustainable f orestsand agroeco systems (Warren, 1988). Converse ly , man ysocial scientists and representatives of farmers, herders,and forest dwel lers have noted the importance o f ecosys-tem integrity and biodiversity as the biological basis oflXX~ peoples" current l ivelihood s and future options.E thnosc i enee , Gende r , and Inv i s ib i l i t yA se ldom hea rd bu t g rowing communi ty o f conce rn hasa lso noted the dist inc t roles and interests of wo men as the"d ail y manageas of the living environment" (Dankelmanand Davidso n, 1988) . A s teady stream of f ie ld researchand informal reports as well as historical research indi-ca tes the gendered nature of ecologica l sc ience andpract ice in mos t cul tures (Chavangi , 1984; Hos kins,

Roche l eau : S to r ie s and Lessons From Kenya1983; Moore and Vaughan, 1987; Meyerhoff , 1982;Rocheleau, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989; Merchant, 1980,1989; Fieuret , 1979; Shos tak, 1981; Mur phy and Murphy,1974; Fernan dez, 1988; Kin g, 1989; Shiv a, 1988). M anyof the same researchers have d ocum ented the changingfights, responsibili t ies, and tas ks of poo r rural wom en,and the imbalance of wo m en 's rights and responsibil it iesas resource managers. Y et ver y l i t tle of the l iterature onsustainabili ty has treated g ender as an issue. The implica-t ion i s that ha l f or mo re o f indigenous ecologica l sc iencehas been obscured by the prevai l ing "invisibi l i ty" ofwomen, their work, their interests and especially theirknow ledge to the international scientific community.

I n h e r a p t l y t if f ed e c e n t b o o k , t a y in g A li v e : o m e n ,Ecology an d Development, Vandana Shiva (1988) posi t ssurvival as the ult im ate criterion for verification of poorrura l wo men 's knowledg e. Severa l o ther recent works onland use change, technology, power , and indigenousknow ledge (Carney , 1988; Jiggins, 1986a, b; Richards,1985 and 1986; W atts, 1983 and 1988; Mcxtimer, 1989;Stamp,1989; Talle, 1988; Meyerhoff, 1982) have alsopo r~ ye d ru ral peo p le ' s combined soci a l, e conomic , andecolog ical strategies as a sc ience of survival, w hether inthe ebb and f low of seasonal adversi ty and opportuni ty ,or in the periodic crises (social , economic, polit ical ,ecological) that affect their fives and livelihoods. Theunderstanding and protec t ion o f the envi ronment as es-sential to rural l iveliho ods, w ork, and social welfare is ahallmark of poor peop les ' and wo me n's envi ronmenta lmov emen ts in India (Shiva, 1988; Jain, 1984; Joshi,1982).Popular movements share s imi lar prac t ica l ecologica lconcerns in the Amazon Basin (Hecht and Cockburn,1988; Mendes, 1989; Schm ink and Woo d, 1990; Posey,1985) , the savannas of East Afr ica (Mat tha i , 1985;Nyere~, 1989; Parkipuny, 1988) and in many other"fragile" or "marginal" rural environments throughoutthe world. From this perspective rural subsistence andhealth beco me environmental pro blem s and the solu-t ions involve quest ions of equi ty as w el l as econom ic andpolitical redistribution (Guha, 1989).

In contrast , the international scientific and develop-ment comm uni t ies have tended to ignore rural pe ople ' ssc ience or have separa ted i t f rom the la rger context ofdaily l ife, labor, and l ivelihoods. Social scientists andecologists a l ike of ten recast "indigenou s know ledge" asan e thnographic ar t i fac t , as "unconscious ecologica lwis dom ' , or as par t of the "environment" for the genera-t ion and introduction of new technology. Even these verypartial and o bjectif ied view s of rural peoples" sciencehave not of ten been studied and understood as genderedknowledge and p rac ti ce. W e face t he doub le t a sk o f r e -shaping the te rms of discourse about popular , loca lecological science (Thrupp, 1989; Beb bingto n, 1990)and int roducing wo me n's sc ience and w om en's in terestsinto the larger domain.

1 5 7

8/6/2019 rocheleau

3/10

8/6/2019 rocheleau

4/10

8/6/2019 rocheleau

5/10

8/6/2019 rocheleau

6/10

other foods (Rocheleau e t a/. ,1985; Wachira, 1987).Whole extended famil ies took to the woodlands,bushlunds, and in-between places ( fencerows, roadsides,

and streambanks) in search of possib le fodd er sources.Som e people tested leaf samples of severa l t ree specieson the i r ca t t le . The e lders in the communi ty made aconcer ted effor t to reca l l which t ree leaves had served inthe past as drought reserve fodder . How ever , unl ike thelast drought and fodd er shor tage o f s imilar magni tude in1946, there was less grazing land, less flexibil i ty ofl ivestock mo veme nt wi thin the region, and in o ver 60%of the households wom en, not men, w ere responsible forl ivestock management (as supervisors or di rec t ly , asherders) . W om en re l ied heavi ly on the ir pr ior knowledg eof wi ld foods and acqu ired new know ledge abou t fodde rplants through hearsay and widespread experimentationwith t rees and shrubs in range and w oodlands.Given the role of w i ld foods and indigenous plantsin genera l as poo r people ' s droug ht and famine reserves,researchers approached wo me n's groups w i th the possi -bi l i ty of protec t ing and managing som e of these plantsi n - s i t u or domesticating them on-farm within agroforestrysystems. Whi le group m embers w ere a t f i rs t incredulousof outsiders" interest in "primitive practices" and "poorpeop le ' s food ", they gradual ly ra l lied around the idea .M oreov er, they insisted on including medicinal plants,an unexpected turn for two reasons. Whi le the projec tteam had associated tradit ional medical practice withmen, there was a w el l developed pract ice by specia l izedwo me n herbalists (mid-w ives and general practi t ioners)as w el l as w idespread knowledg e and prac t ice of basicherbal med ic ine among wo men o ver thi rty years of age("unschooled" and taught by m others and e lder wom en) .The researchers encountered a widely shared concernove r the local disappearance or scarcity of particularmedicinal herbs as w ell as specific indigenous fruits andvegetables.The s ubsequent e thnobotanica l survey of men andwomen in the f ive vi l lages s tar ted wi th the "genera lpubl ic", proceed ed to the special is ts and went back againto the wom en's groups and the i r chi ldren (Rocheleau e ta l . , 1985 and 1 9 8 9 ; W a n j o h i , 1987; Munyao, 1987;Wachira , 1987) . Together they ident i f ied 118 indig-enous or na tural ized wi ld plant species used for medic ineand 45 f or food . O f these, participants selected five fruittrees, three vegetables, and three medicinal plants forpotential do mestication in agroforestry system s or smallgardens. The y also nam ed severa l fruits, vegetables , andmedicinal plants as candidates for special protection inplace , al though wo men w ere qui te cynica l about the i rabi l ity to enforce m anagement rules in publ ic and sharedlands.

Whi le men 's and women's pr ior i t ies var ied theyknew many o f t he same p l aces , c l asse s o f ecosys tems ,and plant associa tions. They tended to kno w and u sedifferent species, or in some cases, different productsfrom the same species. Whereas men's widely shared

Rocheleau: Stories and Less ons From Ken yat radi t ional knowledge of indigenous plants had beenmost develope d in rangeland food and fodder , thei r out -migration, sedentarization, and formal schooling had allmili tated ag ainst the transmission of this gende red sci-ence and prac t ice to the young. Som e men kn ew a grea tdeal about speci f ic c lasses of w i ld plants for special izedpurpo ses (charcoal, brick-making fuel, carvmg, localt imber , bee fodder , and medic ine) , but the knowledgewas uneven ly dispersed and decreased markedly amongthe younge r men in t he communi ty . Amo ng w omen therepersisted a widely shared, high level of general knowl-edge abou t wi ld food, c raf t, an d medic inal plants , wi th anovera l l reduct ion in the sco pe and depth of prof ic iencyamong you nge r wom en . How eve r , t he knowledge gapbetwee n generat ions of wom en was not n ear ly as pro-noanced as tha t for men.

Some members of the communi ty a t t r ibuted thepersistent decl ine in indigeno us know ledge to formalschooling and a rejection of"primitive" tradit ion by theyoun g. Perh aps mote important, me n's outmigration hadsimul taneously rem oved adul t men as tu tors and crea teda labor shor tage and double workload for wom en, leav-ing little time for traditional education in multi-genera-t ional groups of e i ther sex. Moreover , wo men h ad di f fer-ent rights and responsibil it ies than in the past and ha d toacquire and mainta in an ever broader range of newknowledge and skil l . The differential erosion of localeco log i ca l sc i ence among men and women may a l soreflect their respect ive rights, responsibilities, and 013-portunities in farm versus wage labor sectors. Whilewomen maintain l ivelihoods and retain rights of accessto land through res idenc e and agricultural produc tion,young men aspi re to leave home and to succ eed as wagelaborers in nearby c i t ies and towns, wi thout fear ofsacrificing their long term acces s to land.

The feminiza t iou of famine and drought responseand the requisi te sc ience of survival ref lec ts the newspatia l d ivision of labor be tween men and wom en intorural and urban domains. These changes demonstratethat the bo undaries o f gendered kn ow ledge are ne itherf 'Lxed nor independ ent . Con tent and dist r ibut ion o fgendered knowled ge influences and i s inf luenced by thegender divisio n of rights and respons ibil i t ies in national,regional and local context .O n e m a n ' s f ie l d b e c o m e s a w o m e n ' s g r o u p c o m m o n sThe importance o f wi ld plants dur ing the drought wasobvious. The e thnohotany survey a lso confi rmed tha tmos t wom en norma l ly d rew upon fodde r , fue lwood , andsome t imes w i ld food sources beyond the bounda ri e s o fhousehold land, as did the i r chi ldren. However , thosemost reliant on resources outside their own land statedthat their children w ere unlikely to en joy the sam e facil i tyof access to shared lands in the future . 3 Th ey n oted tha tcomm uni ty level land tenure, land use , and vegeta t ionchanges proceeded on the i r own mom entum, outside theconlzol of individ~ml~ and small gro ups.

16 1

8/6/2019 rocheleau

7/10

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - WINTER-SPRINGSince small-holders and legally landless womenrelied on the shared use of private lands to make use ofwild plants (Rocbeleau,1989; Rocbeleau and Fomnann,1988), they had every reason to focus on social strategies

to secure and maintain access to wild plants or onalternative ecological strategies for meeting contingen-cies. Their future access to these resources on sharedlands would depend on careful cultivation of social andpolitical networks, as would their influence on soil,plant, and water management decisions taken bylargeholders and male owners of family plots. Poorwomen's experience during the drought exemplified thecareful interweaving of social and ecological knowledgeto survive in the cross-currents of erratic environmentalconditions with uncertain terms of resource use, access,and control.

As the drought persisted peoples" terms of access to"off-farm lands" acquired increasing importance andtheir domains of use and access became clearer as indi-viduals and groups relied more and more on sharedresources as reserves. The map of actual land use andsource areas that emerged from their activities bore littleresemblance to the formal survey maps that denotedownership, yet was in large part circumscribed by theselegal boundaries established in 1972.Off farm lands as used here denotes any land outsidethe household property o f the user;, in this case it includedroadsides (public land), sUeam banks and riversides (acombination of public and p r i v a t e property), h i l l s l o p ewoodlands (mostly private land), the dry forest acrossthe river (national government land) and most impor-tantly, the grazing lands, woodlands, fencerows andgullies of other farmers (private holdings, small, me-dium, and large). The latter category became increas-ingly significant as grazing and browsing animals andindividual c o l l e c t o r s depleted the reserves in less pro-tected areas. Moreover, the private holdings were usu-ally much closer to the users' homes and farmlands,which reduced the long treks for both people and theirlivestock when both were already weakened by hungerand malnu~tion.

When drought gave way to famine the women'sgroups emerged as a critical link to shared use of privatelands. As the community tacitly declared a state ofemergency, so did they call upon those with greaterresource endowments to share an increasing proportionof those resources with others. However, this socialpressme applied to the act of sharing, not to the namingof the beneficiaries; in fact, participants would be a moreapt term, since those in need were recognized bylargeholders according to longstanding relationships ofreciprocity, most often and most predictably in the con-text of kinship or women's self help groups.

In effect, the communitypeeled back the survey mapto reveal another map o f potential use and users, derivedfrom traditional rules of reciprocity and mutual aid. Yetthe power to determine exactly who could use exactly162

1991which resources, and where, had shifted from the com-munity and large kin groups to the individuals whocontrolled the legal boundaries. Thus a third map emergedwhich combined traditional norms with new loci ofpower, at both community and household level. The factthat men actually owned most of the private plots andformally controlled the public lands, set the stage for agendered struggle for access to resources no less seriousfor its fmesse and skillful manipulation by individualwomen and self-help groups.Poor women's new and traditional knowledge ofethnobutany was necessary but not sufficient for copingwith drought and famine. They also required access toresources controlled by men at household and commu-nity level. Women's groups and individuals had to mo-bilize substantial political skill to legitimize and tap their"social credit" at household, group, and communitylevels.T h e n a m e o f th e f a m i n eAll subsequent discussions of species preference, treeman~ement, and land use for the next two years wereinfluenced by the experience of the drought. Not only badpeople re-diacovered trees and wild plants as sources offood, fodder, and medicine, they had observed the dimin-ished but still substantial yield and the survival of oneman's citrus orchard in comparison to the death or dis-tress sale of their livestock. Moreover, there was widelyshared interest in planting fodder trees and in the intro-duction of fruit trees for both home use and sale. Manypeople had acquired a healthy skepticism about over-reliance on cash income to offset the effects of famine.In fact, this last point illustrates an oR-neglecteddimension of indigenous knowledge: the learning, stor-age, and transmission of knowledge about social politi-cal, economic, and environmental change in the form oforal history, particularly in the naming of events. In thecase of Katham& people "reckon time in famines, andremember them by name". The name of the last faminecaptures the painful irony of the changing times: "I shalldie with the money in my hand" (Alice, personal commu-nication; Rocheleau and Jama, 1989). The codificationof knowledge in the form of famine names records thecentral smlwise of the last famine, makes sense of theexperience, pre-empts the surprise of similar incidents insubsequent years and informs practical, popular plan-ning measures to prevent future famines altogether.Experience in Kathama d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t indigenousknowledge extends well beyond the confines of botanyand agriculture, and well into the domains o f environ-mental history and practical political economy.

C o n c l u s i o nPerlmps the most salient feature of ethno-science re-search with rural women is that it can "buy time" and"create space" for the women themselves to take stock ofthe larger scale processes working against ecological,

8/6/2019 rocheleau

8/10

economic, and cultural d ivers i ty in their rural landscapes .I f research resu lts in documentation and d iscussion ofgendered ethnoscience at community level , then ruralwo men may m ak e mo re in fo rmed cho ices ab ou t wh ichspecies , which sk il ls , and which v is ions of nature andsociety to car ry in to the shaping of their emerging eco-logical and economic fu tures . An action research pro-gram m ight also faci l i ta te the d iscussion and transfer ofknowledge between men, women, and children , as theirroles, responsibilities, and interests change.4 This pro-cess coald resu lt in re-negotiat ion of the d iv is ion of r ightsand responsib il i t ies as well as domains of knowledge andsin, though not without substan tial smaggle over con-f l ict ing in teres ts at household , community , and largerunits of organization . The mere recognit ion and docu-mentat ion of surv ival as a ge ndered science in harsh andunpredictab le environments (poli t ical , economic, eco-logical) may ef fect change a t local and national level . Atbest i t may eve n serve to re-es tab lish the leg it imacy andstrengthen the dynam ism an d innovative capacity of ruralw o m e n ' s a n d men's separate , shared , and in ter lockingknowledge as tools to shape their own fu tures.

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to the people of Kathama, Mbiuni Location,Machakos District Kenya, for their continuing and patientcollaboration ov er a period of seven years. Thek efforts hav esupported research as w ell as training of young professionalsfrom Africa, Europe, and North America. The leaders andmembers of several wom en's groups (Syokimau, Panda ukethe,Athi River, Kanzalu Range, and Katitu groups) have contrib-uted their time, knowledge and insights to surveys, informaltrials, student training" and publications. Mnsyoki has sharedhis land, w ater source, tree seed, sk/ll~, experimental results,and his honest judgement of agroforestx and related technolo-gies. Alice, Ndungwa, Puninah a nd Winfrend (now deceased),led the women in the comm unity in exploring new agrofore s~ypractices and in documenting their own experience and inno-vations. Veronica Ndunge and Lawrence Kyongo have mea-sured tree growth and survival, conducted meetings, inter-views and surveys, translated for outside researchers, andacted as extension agents. Japheth K yengo has committed hisown farm, and his community work to the testing of ideas,s l~s , and ixactices that he has de velope d as a field researchassistant. He has m odified many o f the m ethods employed inthe cotwse of field work, has informed otr analyses of results,,and has freely shared information with peo ple in the com mu-nity as well as outsiders. All of the work summarized in thispaper also owes much to prio r research conducted at Kat ham aby John Raintree a nd Rem ko Vonk, to collaboration withIngrid Duchart, Kamoji Wachira, Luis Malaret, MuhamudJema, and Alison Field, and to student researchers (A. vanHoek; B. Muchiri; E. van Djeil; P. Maundu; M. Mutiso; L.Pope; A. Morrill; I. Cantor). Field wo rk was conducted underthe auspices of ICRAF with funding from the RockefellerFoundation and The Ford Foundation.

Rocheleau: Stor ies and Less ons From KenyaNotes1. Cham bersdefines"normallxofe ssionalism" as careeristbehaviorthatoftenplaces e ch no cra ~ a n d b ~ im perativesabovetheneed s ofpeop le an d fl~edemandsof hepanioAsrsitmtion.

2. This choiee o tell astory derives fxom he often unique circumostancesofethno scient i~ expertise. t also eflects the mpot'a m~ofnmmiveaccounts n feminist cholarship.S o~l lin g" as opposedto experhnentalreporting" s also n keeping with the tradition audspiritoflhohistm'icaland(simultaneousiy) clentificrecordofpeopleinKathama.3.The termsharudlandsis used as m alternative o common auds~:ethe formal definition of the latter (Bm mle y, 1986) excludes thecomplexpattemofu s~ access, and controldescribed here.4.For a separatediscussionof he methods usedin the field work sudthose appropriate orfurtheracfionresearch ee Cham bers a ai , 1989,ILEIA, 1988;Jiggim, 1986;Roc heleanetd, 1988,R0cheleau, 1991.References

Bebbington,Tony.1 9 9 0 . ' ~ F m n ~ K n o w k d g e , ~ m t i o n a l ~and Sustainable AgriculturalStrategies:ACa se Studyfrom heEastern Slopes o lhoP emv an Andes."Bullet n ofL ~ inAmer -c~mRese~'ch.9 (2).For hcom ing.

Brokensha. David, D.M. Warren and 0. We mer . (eds.) 1980. ndig-mousKnowledgeSystons andDevelopment. Unive~ity PtessofAm~ ic~ Lanham,Mefy]and.

Brondey, D. 1986. "Thecommon property challenge." InN atkm alAcadonc~ofScienceProceedingsoflheConferencesonCom-monProperty ResourceM~magement.NaliunalAcademyPress.

Came y, udlth. 1988."SUugghnoverlandan dcmpsinaninigatedrkeschem~ T heGambia."In J.Davisun.Wom~ andL out T enure/~A~-~_a.Westview.Boulder.

Chambers,Robert. 1986."NormalP rofessionalism,NewParadigmsandDevelopment."IDSDiscussionP aper 227.IDS Sussex.

Chavangi,N.A. 1984."Culturalaspectsof uelwoodprocurementinKak ameg ~ KWDP"Wo tk in gPaperNo.4.KenyaWoodFuelDevelopmentPmject.Nairobi.

Dankelman, reneandJ0mDavidsm. 1988. W om ~andEnv/ro,vnentin he Third Wor ld A llicm~e or theF uture. EarlhscanPubllca-fiunsLtd.Londen.

Fernsudez, Maria. 1988."Techoologicaldomainsofwomeninmixedfanning systemsofAndeanpeasant comm unitie s.'InS. Poats,M. Schmink and A. Spring. Eds. Gender Issues in FarmingSystemsReseorch andF~ms /on. WestviewPress. Boulder.

Fleuret, Ann. 1979."Method s for evaluation of he role of ruits andwild gee ns in S uwa ea diet: a case study." Medica lAn thropo -ogy.Spring, I979.

G u h a , ~ 1 9 8 9 . "R ad ic a l~ en v k o n m en ta l i sm an dwiklenesspreservafiun:aThinlWcfkicrit/que."Em/ro~mnta/Eth/cs. 11 (1) 71 - 83.

Hecht, Susanna and Alexander Cock bum. 1988. The Fate of heFo rest :Developers, Destroyers and Defende rs of heAmazon.Varso.NewYork.

Hoskins,Madlyn. 1983.Rura/Womm, ForestOutputsandForestryProjects.F~A.O.Rome.

Jain, Shobita.1984.'~tandingup or Uees:W omen'sm l e i n t h e ~movement." Unasy/va36 ( 146): 12-20.

Jiggins,Janice. 1986. "ProblemsofUnderstanding andCommunica-tion at he Interface of Knowledge Sys tem s." n S. Poats, M.

andA.SIxinyrEds.Gender ls,mesinFarming Systems163

8/6/2019 rocheleau

9/10

A G R I C U L T U R E A N D H U M A N V A L U E S - W I N T E R -S P R I N G 1991R e se ~ c h and Ex te ns ion . W e s tv ie w Press. Boulder.

Jiggins, ardce.1986."WomenandSeasonality:CopingwithCrisisan dCalamity."In R.LonghurstEd. Seasonal/ty andPoverty. ID SBulletin 17 (3): 9 - 1 8 .

Johnson, Douglas H. and D.M . Anderson. 1988. T h e E c o l o g y o fSurvi mL"Case a . d i e s j ~ m N o n ~ A ~ c a n ~ w r y . W e stv ie wPress.Boulder.

Joshi,G . 1982.Menpropose , wo me no pp ~e the des truc t ionoffore.~s .Information Service on Science and Society-Related Issues.Centre orSc imceandEnvirenmenLDelhi.

Juma, Calestous. 1 9 8 8 . T h e G e n e H u n t e r s : B i o t e c h n o l o g y a n d t h eS c r m b l e f o r e d s . p r : a ~ t m U m v e r s it y r e ss . r i nc e to n .

J u m a , ~ 1 9 8 9. B i ol o g ic a l Di v e rs i t ya n d ln n o va t i on : C on s e rv -i n g n d U ti li zi ng o ~ i c R e s o u r ce s n K e n y a . ~ C e n tr e o rTechnologyStudies.Nahobi.

King, Y nesUa. 1989."The eoologyoffeminism andthe feminismofecology."h Judith Plant. Ed. H e a l i n g h eW o u n d s. N e w S o a e t y

Kir im , Am os aa d C.Jum a.Eds . 1989. Gaining G round: Ins t itut ionalI rm ovat lons in lan d use M a n a g e m e n t i n K e n y a . f r i c a n e n t r eforTechnologyStndles. Nmhebi.Matth~d,Wangari. 1985.The GreenB eltMovement.WangariMatthai,P.O.Box 14832, Naimbi.

Mendes, C . 1989. Fight for theForest: C h i c o M e n d e s i n H i s O w nWords.Latin Ametica Bm em~L ondomMe rc hant , Cam ly n . 1980 . The D e ath q tNatur e :Women, Ecology and

theScientificRevolution.HarperandRow.SanFrancisco.Merchant, Carolyn. 1989. Eco/o$/calRevolutions:Nature,G e n d e rand Sc ie nc e inNe w England . Th e U n iv e ~t y o f Nor th Carol inaP r ~ C h ~p ~ lX -m

Meyedmff~F-liTal-eth. 982.The Socio e c onom ic and R i tua lRole so fPok~Women.AnthropologyPh.D.Thesis.CambndgeUniver-s~y .

Moore,Hen rietta. 1988. Fern/n/sin andA nthropo/ogy .Universityo fbfum esotaPress, Vfirtm~polis.M o o r e , ~ 1 98 6 . S p ac e, T e xtand G e nde r: AnAnthro~log ic a l

S t ud y f h e M r a ~ a o f ge n ya . a m t , ~ I g ~ C m n l xi d g e n i v r -~yPre~

M o o r e , He n ri e tt a , n d M e g e n V a n g h a n . 1 9 8 7 . ' ~ u t t i n g d o w n t re es :w o m e n , n ul r it i en n d g r i c ul t m a l h a n g e n h e o r t h e r n r o v -i n c e ~ b i ~ 1 9 2 0 9 8 6 . " A fr / c a n A ff a / r s 6 ( 3 45 ) : 2 3 - 4 0 .

M o r t i me r , i c h a e L 1 9 8 9 . A d a p t i n g t o D r o u g h t . C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r -s i t y . C e m b r i d g e .Mu nym , P. 1987. "Theimpot~anceo fgathered foodandmedicinalplant species in Kakuyuni and Ka tham a areas in Machakos."A n n e x 1 n ILK . W ac hi ra (e d . W o m e n ' s U s e o f f f - F a rm a n dBoundaryLands:AgroforestryPatentials.FmalProjectRepo~ICRAF.NSIrob

Murphy, Yolanda endRobert M urphy. 1974.W o m e n o f i h e F o r e s t.ColurabiaUnivemityPre~.New Ymk.Myers,Norman. 1979.TheSinkingArk .Oxford.PergamonPress .

N y ~ J u l i u s . 1 98 9.T es &n on ybefmeWodd CommissimenEnvi-ronment andDevd opmm t 'Octob er, 1986.Harare,~mmbawe.Parkipuny,M,S. Ole. 1988. "TheNgnm ngom Crater ssue:Th ePointo fViewof he ndigenom MaasaiCommunityo fNgoro~gom."P~pertm:sented o heInternafionalCongress n Naaue Man age-

meritand SustainableDevelopment.University of Groningen,The N etherlands.Dec.6-9,1988.

Posey, Daryl. 1985. "Indigenous m anagement o f Iropical forestecosystems: the case of the Kaya po ndians o f the BrazilianAm ~zon. "Agrofore s t r y Sy s te m s3 (2): 139-15 8.

Redclift ' Michael. 1987.Sustainab/eDevelopment: Ex plor ing theContr_,M _~k~ns.Methuen and Co.New York.

Richards, Paul. 1985.IndigenousAgriculturalRevolution. 'Ecologyand Foo d Produc tion in We s tA f r i c a . H ~ n : L o n d o m

Ricluaxls,PanL 1986. C o p i n g w i t h H u n & e r : H a z a r d a n d ~inanAfr iccmRice .FarmingSystem.AllenandUnwin.London.

Rochelean ,D. 1991."P arfdpatn~ researchin agroforesU~,L e a n ~ gfrom experience and exl~mdingo~repetnire."AgroforestrySy s te m s :9 ( 1 ) .

Rocheleau, D. 1989."The g ende r division of work, resources andrewards n agrof~estry systems." n A.E. Kilewe,K.M . Kealeya n d K . I C K e b a a r a e d s . A g r o f o re s t ry D e v e l o p m e n t i n K e n ya .ICRAF. N aimbi.pp . 228-7.A5.Rocheleau, D . 1 987."A Land User Perspect ive for AgroforestryRe se arc h and Ac t ion . " In K G ho z e d . A f r s o ~ ealities,Poss/b///u'esandPotent/a/s.M arfnus Nij~off.Det'drecht.

Rochelean,D. 1988."Women, rees andtenm ~."InL Fomnann andJ .Bru ce eds . W hose Trees? Proprie tary dimen slons of f res try .W es tv iew . Bouldex . Fp. 254 - 27 2.Rochelean,D.E. 1985 "criteria on~,-apprsisalandre-design: nlxa-household andbetween-household aspects ofFSR Ein threeKenyanagmfores~pmje~." ICRAFWoddngPaperNo.37 .ICRA F, Nsirobi.

Rocheleau. D~.., K.K. Wachira, L Malaret and B. Wanjohi, 1989."F, hnoecologicalmethods o complement ocalknowledgeandfann~innovatimsin agmforestw."hAFocey,R. Chambe~an dL. Th ml~ eds .F arm er Fir~. Intermediate Technology .London.

Rocheleau, D.,P.Khasiala, M.M uny m, M . Mutiso, E. Opala,B .W a n j c h i m d A . W m j u m a . 1 9 8 5 . W o m m " s us eq fo ff -f ~m l an d ~ :Implicat ionsfor agrofores tryrese~ch.Pmjectre tx~to theFordFoendation.Mimoo. CRAF.Nah~bi.

R o c b e ~ D . a n d A . H o e ~ 1984. T h e A p p ~ a t i e n ~ an dLandscapeAnalysis n Agm foreslxyDiagnosis ndD esign: ACase Study from Katham aSublocation, Machakos District,Kenya."WerkingPaperNo. l l . ICRAF .Naimb i.

Rochelem,D. a n d L ~ 1988. AVcmen 's s lm:~ and women 'spla ce s n rura l foodix~__,__,,~ion y stem s:T he spatialdism'butionof wo m en's ights, respomibilities and acfivities."Paperpre-sentedto the 7th WoddCongress ofR ~a l Sociology.25 lune-1July.Bologna, taly.

Rocheleau,D.,F.Weber , andA.Field-Juma. 1988. Ag rofo r~ry inDry/andA~/c,, ICRA F.NSIrobi.

Rochdean, D. andM.Jama.1989.AnnualReportof l:armingSystemsand ~ Re searc h Pr ojoct.Sur,m m ry o : ~ v i e w w i t he iders at Ka tham a. m anuso(q~ ID S. Nak obi .

Roe, EmeryendLouiseFortmann. 1981. Semen and Slrategy:Thec hanging orge ni za t lon o f ihe r ura l wate r s e c tor in B a t sw ana.RuralDevelopmmtCommittee.ComellUnivenity.Ithaca.

Samkhan,Jose, 1985. "Ecological andsodaloverviews ofethnobo-tmica l research." Economic Botany .39: 43 1.4 3 5.Schmink,MarianneandChadesWood. 1990. "CentestedF~ntie~inAm azonia." Manuscript. Center forLatin A merican Studies.

164

8/6/2019 rocheleau

10/10

UniversityofFlorida.Gainesville.Shiva,Vandana.1988. StayingA~ve:Women,EcologyandDevelop-

ment. ZedPress.London.Shostal~Marjtxie,1981.Nisa:TheL ~feandWordsofa !Knm Woman.VintageBooks.Ne wYork.

S amp, Patricia. 1989.Technology, Gender andPower in Aft ca.IntmmtiooalDevelopmentResearchCentre(IDRC).Ottawa.Talle,Aude. 1988.Womenata[.z~ss:ChangesinMaasaiPastoralism

andTheirEff~tsonGe nder Relations.Unive~sityof Stockholm.Stock~lm.

Toledo, Victor M. 19 89. "Th e ecological rationality ofpeasantproduetion."In M .Altieriand $.HeehtEds.AgroecologyandSmallFarmDevelopment.CRCPress.BoeaRa~n, Florida.Thm ~,L.A. 1989. "Legitim iz~ Lo~Knowledge:FromDisp~:e,-meat oEmpowermenffcxThirdWorklPeople."Agr/cu/t~eandHmmmVa/ues.6 (3): 13 -24.

Waehira,K.IC 1987.Women'suseofoff-farmandboundary lands:agrofore~rypotent/a/s.Projeetreport o heFord oundation.bfnneo.Naimbi.ICRAF. 37pp.

Rocheleau: Stor ies and Lessons From K enyaWamalwa,BettyNafun~ 1989. ~dig eno us knowledgeand natural

resources."InKiriro,AmosandC.Iuma.Eds.GainingGround:Institutional nnovations n an d Use Mana gement in enya.

Cent~forTeelmologyStudies.Nairobi.Wanjohi, B. 19 87. Wo men 's groups' gathered plants and theirpotenfals in theKathama~ Annex 1 n ICK.Waeh ir~ (eeL)Women'sUseofOff-Farm andBoundatyLands:AgroforeslryPotential~ 'mal rojectRepor CRAF. aimbi.

Wan-en,D.M. 1988. "Linkingseienlifie ndindigenousagrieultoralsystems."/n .I,inComl~onEd.TheTransformatian oflnterna-tionalAgriculturalResearchandDeveiopment.Westview.Boul-def.

Warm,MichaeL1983.Sile~Violence:FaodFamineandPeasan~inNorthamNigeria.Uniwrsi ty o f ~ P r es ~ Bea~167.

Waits,MichaeL1988. "Semgglesoverland,smagglesovermeaining:some houghtson aming,peasantresistsnceand hepoliticsfplace."InR. Golledge,H.Coucelis andP.GouldEds.A GroundforCommonSearch. GeographicalPress. Santa Barbara.

I N T E R N A T I O N AL D E V E L O P M E N T E T H I C S A S S O C I A T I O N

THIRD INTERNATIONA L CONFERENCE ONETHICS AND DEVELOPMENT

"THE ETHICS OF ECODEVELOPMEN T:C U L T U R E , T H E E N V I R O N M E N T, A N D D E P E N D E N C Y "

The International Development Ethics Association (IDEA) announces a call for papers tobe presented at its Third International Conference on Ethics and Development, to beheld at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras, June 21-27, 1992. The theme ofthe meeting is "The Ethics of Ecodevelopment: Culture, the Environment, andDependency.' IDEA is a cross-cultural, multidisciplinary group of philosophers, as wellas development theorists, policymakers, and representatives of grass-roots groups, whoapply ethical reflection to development goals and strategies and to the relationsbetween rich and poor countries. Established in Costa Rica in 1987, IDEA held its firstconferences in Costa Rica (1987), Mexico (1989), and a workshop, 'Ethical Principlesfor Development: Needs, Capacities, or Rights?,' at Montclair State College (1991).IDEA's Third Conference aims (1) to promote a fruitful convergence of internationaldevelopment ethics and environmental ethics, (2) to forge an ethic of ecodevelopmentthat takes into account cultural, environmental, and economic values and constraints,(3) to influence the formation and implementation of ethical policies and practicesconcerning development and the environment. The International Conference AdvisoryCommittee includes Luis Camacho (Costa Rica), Peter Penz (Canada), Ramon Romero(Honduras), Horatio Cerutti Guldberg and Laura Mues (Mexico), Nigel Dower (Scotland),Ken Aman, David A. Crocker, J. Ron Engel, Denis Goulet, Rachel McCleary, and PaulStreeten (USA). The deadline for submission of paper proposals is November 30, 1991.The deadline for finished papers/abstracts and advanced registration Is April 30, 1992.For further information about IDEA and its Third International Conference, contactDavid A. Crocker, ID EA , Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Ft.Collins, CO. USA 80523. Fax: (303) 491-0528. Telephone: (303) 484-5764.