The invisibility of women and plantations in the CBD
By
the WRM, May 2008
The CBD recognized in 1992 the
“vital role of women in the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity” and affirmed “the need for the
full participation of women at all levels of policy-making and implementation
for biological diversity conservation” (Preamble; paragraph
13).
In spite of that, women have remained
as invisible as ever within the deliberations of the CBD’s conferences
of the parties.
It needs to be stressed that the
issue of women in forests is not limited to their “vital role”
in their conservation, but also to the vital role that forests play
in relation to women’s livelihoods. Deforestation and forest
degradation affect all members of forest dependent communities, but
at the same time result in differentiated gender impacts, where women
suffer the most.
There is more than sufficient
evidence on those impacts on women (1) , which means
that they clearly need to play a “vital role” in protecting
the biodiversity they depend on. However, their “full participation”
has not been ensured and women continue being an invisible actor in
the CBD.
Another issue that remains invisible
–having strong negative impacts particularly on women- is that
of monoculture tree plantations. These are usually invisibilized under
the term “all types of forests”, which –in CBD language-
includes both “natural” and so-called “planted forests”.
Whenever a delegate insists on including in the text the term “all
types of forests” instead of simply “forests”, the
reason is that his/her government wishes to hide its monoculture tree
plantations (“planted forests”) under it.
Those tree monocultures have been
adequately defined by local communities as “green deserts”,
“dead forests”, “green cancer”, “planted
soldiers” and similar terms, which clearly show that they have
nothing in common with forests, except for the presence of trees.
The many –and well documented- social and environmental impacts
of plantations, include their differentiated gender impacts and those
affecting local biodiversity. Here again, women are the ones who suffer
the most (2).
But until now, both the impacts
of plantations on biodiversity and their differentiated impacts on
women have remained invisible within the CBD.
In order to comply with its mandate
–the conservation of biodiversity- the CBD should strongly oppose
the substitution of biodiversity-rich forests with biodiversity-poor
tree monocrops. As a starting point for making this possible, it should
explicitly exclude monoculture tree plantations from the term “all
types of forests”.
The invisibility of women and
plantations within the CBD must cease.
Women need to become very visible
within the CBD. The convention is mandated to ensure “the full
participation of women at all levels of policy-making and implementation
for biological diversity conservation”. The conference of the
parties must therefore comply with this commitment.
For the opposite reason, plantations
also need to be made very visible at CBD. The convention is mandated
to ensure the conservation of biological diversity. The conversion
of forests and other native ecosystems to large scale tree monocultures
destroys biodiversity and the conference of the parties must therefore
oppose their spread.
1 - World Rainforest Movement.- "Women, forests and plantations:
the gender dimension". WRM, 2005
http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/women/text.html
2 - Barcellos, Gilsa and Ferreira, Simone.- "Women and Eucalyptus:
Stories of Life and Resistance". WRM, 2007 http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Brazil/Book_Women.html
