Greetings ECOFEMers!
In recent discussions, we've covered issues concerning
capitalism/class (and to a lesser extent "third world"
(two thirds world?) and First Peoples') concerns regarding the
environment. Although we haven't discussed it in any depth, I think
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) offers a significant
"practical" example of the complexity of problems/benefits that stem
from international and national attempts at addressing environmental
problems.
In the case of the CBD, questions regarding modern Western
icons/institutions of "ownership", "property rights," and
"sovereignty" are integral to conceptions of "ecological
sustainability." (For an excellent article documenting some of these
issues for Maori, see:
Mead, Aroha Te Pareake and Nin Tomas. 1995. "The
Convention on Biological Diversity: Are Human Genes
Biological Resources?" New Zealand Environmental Law
Reporter. July:127-132.)
>From an environmental feminist position, icons/institutions of
ownership, property rights, and sovereignty also invoke the
additional aspect of patriarchal/androcentric power relations. I
question whether such conventions, framed--signed--invoked in such
settings, can actually contribute to a "better environment." At the
same time, I realize "implementation" on national, regional, and
local levels often can change/skew/improve the intentions of
international conventions.
I'm curious about what ECOFEMers think about the challenges of
"changing the system." What role does feminist environmentalism (my
preferred term, but we need not stick to my lexical choice!) have
with regard to framing, implementing, and influencing "environmental
issues", bearing in mind the multiplicity of feminisms AND the
diversity of women's and men's experiences?
Looking forward to discussions,
Stefanie Rixecker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
