An important analytical framework that brings together the concepts of gender theory and nat- ural resource use is the environmental entitlements framework. Environmental entitlements is an approach proposed by Leach et al (1997) as a framework for understanding the way social actors use and access the environment. These actors may be differentiated by class, gender or wealth or even by locality. Environmental entitlement focuses on how diverse constituents of
53
the environment are used and accessed by different social actors, even in the same community. Leach et al (1997:7) observe that
‘those with different modes of livelihoods, or who carry different responsibilities within divisions of labour, may need to draw on very different environmental resources and services, and hold different views of what constitutes environmental degradation or improvement in that context’.
The framework is an extension of Sen’s entitlement framework in which he emphasises the difference between the existence of a resource, and command of it, and posits that people starve even when there is enough food because they do not have entitlement to that food (Sen, 1982). But while Sen’s entitlements analysis was limited to the household and individuals within the household, Leach et al (1997) widened it to include communities and socially differentiated groups of individuals within these communities, and organisations. With regards to environ- mental change, they argue that communities are not static or undifferentiated, but made up of different groups and individuals, who experience the environment in different ways and whose use of the environment transforms it into different components.The key themes of their frame- work are entitlements, endowments, capabilities and institutions. Endowments are rights and resources that social actors possess and may include labour, land and skills, while entitlements refer to the outcome of negotiations among actors. Entitlements refer not only to what an indi- vidual has a right to, but to what ‘they can have using the totality of rights and opportunities that he or she faces’ (Sen 1984:497). They define environmental entitlements as the ‘alternative set of utilities derived from environmental goods and services over which social actors have legitimate effective command and which are instrumental in achieving wellbeing’ (Leach et al 1999: 233).
Entitlements and endowments are not static but can be changed from one to the other depending on time and context. What may be an endowment at a certain time can be transformed into an entitlement at another (ibid). Endowments (such as livestock) become entitlements (such as
54
manure) through the process of mapping. Leach et al (1997) introduce the concept of capabil- ities. These refer to the range of options that people can exercise with their entitlements. Peo- ple’s capabilities are in turn enhanced by their entitlements. Leach et al (1999) further note that gender or age may preclude certain social actors from mobilizing the endowments (such as capital or labour) which they require to make effective use of other endowments (such as land), young men for example or women may be unable to command labour they need to cultivate a piece of land.
A central aspect of the environmental entitlement framework is the role of institutions in me- diating access to the environmental resources and their importance in highlighting power rela- tions. Institutions in this case refer to both formal institutions such as organisations and infor- mal ones such as social practices or ‘regularised patterns of behaviour that emerge from under- lying structures or set of rules in use’ (Leach et al 1999: 237). While informal institutions are embedded and slow to change, formal institutions can undergo rapid change (Leach et al., 1997). These institutions can constrain or promote an actor’s access to resources. According to Ribot & Peluso (2003), access refers to people’s ability to benefit from resources, and is gov- erned by powers that are exercised through various processes and social relations, and this is not static, but can change over time.
Sen (1987) contends that relationships between family members of a household are different from their interactions with others outside. He defines entitlements as bundles of goods which ensue not to the household as a whole but for each household member, and endowments as bundles of ownership for individual household members, with labour being the most common endowment people bring to the mix. The mapping of endowments and entitlements and the strong mediating role of institutions is illustrated in the environmental entitlements framework diagram in Figure 1.
55
Figure 1: Environmental Entitlements Framework. Adapted from Leach et al. 1999:234.
Though the usefulness of the environmental entitlements framework in studying environmental change has been acknowledged in a number of studies (Stringer 2005, Nunan 2006, Macona- chie 2007) studies, examples of its use in research are not widespread. Nunan (2006) examines the gendered dimensions of fishery resources using the environmental entitlement framework. She demonstrates how the fisheries community in Uganda comprises different sub groups dom- inated by men, who are mainly involved in fishing, and women involved in processing and
Differentiated Social Ac- tors
Environmental goods and services Endowments Entitlements Capabilities Institutions Institutions Institutions Macro Meso Micro Institutions Institutions Institutions Macro Meso Micro Institutions Institutions Institutions Macro Meso Micro
56
trading. Different institutions mediate access to fisheries resources, including informal ones such as unelected traditional leaders, gender relations, relations between boat owners and boat crew, and formal ones such as fisheries legislation and the officers who enforce them. In South Africa, Ntshona et al 2010 show how following land reforms in the post-apartheid period, many people who had legally acquired land rights (endowments) could not transform them into enti- tlements because of conflicting state and traditional institutional arrangements.
Household relations shape and are shaped by the informal institutions that Leach et al (1999) discuss. Consequently, the next section details the role of the household in environmental change, women’s agency in natural resource use and the importance of social capital to women’s responses to environmental change.