Gender and the Environment

Season 1: Episode 5 of the Rethinking Development Podcast

Leisa Perch is an international development consultant with over 20 years of experience providing both technical advice and managerial support to different international development agencies such as UN Women and UNDP. Her experience and expertise spans a number of areas including gender and women’s empowerment programming, gender and sustainable development, environmental management, climate change adaptation, post disaster recovery, sustainable livelihoods and more. Leisa previously set up and led the Rural and Sustainable Development Cluster at the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG) in Brasilia, Brazil and worked with the UNDP Sub-regional Office for Barbados and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean states (OECS). Leisa speaks to us about the importance of using an intersectional analytical framework, building trust in communities, listening with an open mind, working across the natural and social sciences, acknowledging that we work within ecosystems, avoiding harm and much more. She joins us from Barbados.

Transcript

Intro: I always try to say that it’s key to remember that the box that holds back women, also holds back men. And once we start understanding that and we start actively trying to understand that box, stretching it open, creating doors and windows in the box, creating new boxes or avoiding boxes all together, I think will be the best way.

Safa: Hello and Welcome to the Rethinking Development Podcast. My name is Safa and I will be your host as we speak with and learn from development practitioners of all affiliations and backgrounds around the world. Each week, we aim to rethink ethical behaviour and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Leisa perch. Leisa perch has over 20 years of experience providing both technical advice and managerial support to different international development agencies such as UN Women and UNDP. She is now a development advisor providing consulting services. Her experience and expertise spans a number of areas related to gender and women’s empowerment programming, gender and sustainable development, environmental management, climate change adaptation, post disaster recovery, sustainable livelihoods, and more. Leisa previously set up and lead the rural and sustainable development cluster at the International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth in Brasilia, Brazil and also worked with the UNDP Sub-regional Office for Barbados and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. Lisa, thank you so much for speaking to us today. In your own words, could you tell us a bit about your professional focus and the social issues that you’re most committed to working on and contributing to?

Leisa: Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity and hello everyone. As Safa has outlined I guess you would say that the niche area that I work on is very much the intersection between social policy and environmental policy. And I do a lot of work on gender and environment. I focus on this area because one, it’s an area where generally and traditionally it’s been somewhat neglected- even as I do the work that I do now, you continue to see where there are barriers and gaps in bringing social scientists and natural scientists or environmental scientists together — they don’t naturally work together still, even though this is improving, there is still a lack of understanding I think. And perhaps it’s also how we explain and we frame the issues and in terms of how social issues are relevant to the environmental policy and vice versa how environmental issues are relevant to social policy. So I think there’s a lot that could be done that would strengthen and make the policy on both sides much more robust and really much more holistic, inclusive, and sustainable. I think that’s really at the core of where my passions are. Trying to make sure that when we do social policy and environmental policy, we’ve taken the other side into consideration. We’ve considered the issues — both those that are obvious and those that are less obvious and seek to just do better in terms of how we do this actively in terms of policy development but also in terms of projects and interventions. And that includes looking at how we improve our frames of analysis. So I do quite a bit of analytical work. I do work in developing project documents. I also do work in terms of guiding or leading a specific research. For example, work on, research on gender and fisheries. I also work with clients in preparing knowledge documents and products. Looking at, again, most of my work is very much about what is that gender question, how can it best be defined? And actually how do you do gender mainstreaming. I also do quite a bit of training, which then provides quite a bit of insight in terms of how you prepare documents in a certain way that helps for the reader and for users and for those who are being asked to do more gender work because of the funding that’s available, and because of the commitment to Agenda 2030, to kind of provide the guidance in terms of how do they do this. You know, I usually say that it often comes to the question of what am I doing differently tomorrow than I did today or yesterday? And what are some of those steps, you know, who can I collaborate with? Where do I find the guidance? Where can I find examples that may be relevant to the work that I’m doing? So that in a nutshell explains a little bit, I think of what I’m doing, but also where my passion lies. I mean, I think put more plainly, it is really just making sure that when we apply the millions of dollars that are available for, particularly for environmental and climate and sustainable development funding, and you know, issues and challenges that we make sure that as we do that work, we are also addressing the preexisting inequalities on deprivations that affect the people that we’re trying to influence, including most of that work focuses on behaviour change. But there’s actually very little sometimes behaviour change analysis that’s actually done to figure out what are those behaviours, what’s driving those behaviours and what is it that I’m trying to change in my project. So part of my passion is really trying to understand and address this barrier and gap as effectively as I can.

Safa: I see. That’s definitely very interesting work and there’s a lot to unpack there. You mentioned at the beginning that a part of the focus is not only addressing obvious issues but uncovering some of the less obvious issues. When it comes to gender environment work, could you speak to us a bit about what some of those less obvious issues might be and how it is that some of them might be overlooked or not addressed enough?

Leisa: So there, you know, there are many things and it also depends on the context of the country and who you’re working with . Even within small countries, I live in the Caribbean, and there are many nuances or many layers to any issue. But what I would say, this comes out from some of the work that I’m doing now and also some of the work that others are doing for example, is looking at how as we do our work, how do we cater for and avoid further harm. That includes looking at how we, for example, if you want to engage women because we feel that the evidence suggests that they have not been engaged traditionally and effectively in a sector, we want to make sure that they’re not left behind and they’re engaged equitably. How do we do that in a way that does not potentially lead even indirectly to violence and gender based violence? So thinking about those kinds of issues -which are not directly linked to what you’re dealing with — but you also want to make sure as you do your work that you’re not creating further conflict and you’re not creating an environment which may lead to other problems. I think that’s the best way of saying it. Also looking at how as we do our work, particularly in a post-disaster context, we are aware of the risks, and how people deal with risk and understand risk is very variable and that includes looking at the fact that people’s perception of risk , we’re learning, increasingly and continually is very different — including between men and women and including between one’s capacity to act and one’s incapacity to act. I’m thinking about those kinds of, again, subtle issues when we’re communicating about a crisis, for example, a hurricane, thinking about what kinds of actions we want people to take, speaking in much more specific and personalized ways that would allow the person to understand the urgency and the need to take action. And to understand also that within our household there are different perceptions and understandings of what you’re communicating and sometimes when we see people delayed in leaving their homes it is because of the different perceptions and the debate that is created there. Going back to the point about gender based violence, also just thinking about how when we want to engage women and girls in environmental work, we want to be not just looking at them as victims. We want to look at them as agents of change, passionate warriors, defenders of human rights. How we make sure, also as we craft our partners and then we do our projects, we consider the risk of gender based violence. That includes thinking about when we’re talking about conservation, that it may include work at night. How do we make sure that we are creating an environment of safety? There’s safety in the work that’s being done. We’re looking at who we are putting together in teams. We’re looking at vetting all the persons in the team to make sure it’s a safe and effective enabling environment for everyone. We also look at how, you know, within society we see across the world numerous elements and manifestations of family violence and a lot of the time we forget when we’re dealing with environmental issues that the people we’re trying to deal with are affected by a number of social ills, whether it’s poverty, a deprivation — but some of that also is derivatives of violent family activity or the violent family realities. And people are not engaging because you’re dealing with a numerous set of issues and if perhaps we were a little bit more perceptive when we are engaging those persons on what is affecting them and their vision of the world or how they even see the environment, sometimes I think that would also help to have a much more nuanced and robust discussion about the environment. Not just for environmental sake, but the environment also as a social resource, as a natural resource. It’s something intrinsic that people enjoy having. As somebody said in some recent work that I was doing when they made the point that, you know, in some ways there’s also a freedom that comes with working in an environmental space. And sometimes that is a benefit and we’ve seen that numerous times when we look at persons suffering different forms of trauma that some of the very solutions or mechanisms that are used are linked to the environment and the natural environment. So it’s just thinking about how we look at those issues as well. Not only instrumentally, but also just naturally that these are elements that people respond to. These are realities that persons are dealing with and we really need to better understand what are those challenges that people have that do not come out in the initial focus group discussion. That you have to build trust for some of these realities to be to be made clear. Sometimes you’re lucky in a brief discussion that you can get some of the realities or people will tell you what they’re going through and sometimes it’s very horrifying to hear. But sometimes you have to work a little bit more to find out these issues and that helps you to understand why certain people may not be coming to meetings to discuss. Some people may say that they don’t have the time or they, you know, they are, you know, they’re challenged to contribute more. But at the back of that, are a number of social, different dynamics that we really need to understand a little better. So that’s just to give you a little bit of a touch on what I mean by things that are perhaps not so obvious.

Safa: Absolutely. But when you speak of really doing the work to make sure that that broader perspective is in place or the work of building trust with the communities you’re trying to serve — what are some of the tools that you’ve been able to use to really make that happen in a more effective way?

Leisa: Well, I think that, and there are no perfect answers. I mean, as you, you learn — one of my humbling moments was when I started working on poverty and community level issues. And one of the key things I learned was I had to take myself out of my box and try to be in the box of the people that I was working with. So I couldn’t come to the work with the trappings of who Lisa was and where Lisa lived and what Lisa’s experiences were. Yes, some times these are relevant, but in order to figure out where they are relevant , I had to separate a little bit and really understand and hear the community. So I think one of the key tools is listening. And listening with as open a mind as possible. Listening for opportunities where you can probe further. But as I said, a key part of that is building trust. Building trust includes being accessible, understanding that you’re there to help but you’re not there with all the solutions. The solutions you’re likely to come up with are solutions that probably have already been thought of. What you may be providing is the glue that sticks, you know, the wood to another piece of wood. Are you maybe providing the link between, uh, you know, a feeder road and the market and other markets. So in some cases humility is also a key tool to have. As much as we want to contribute and want to make a difference, sometimes the people in the community have already come up with ideas, what they’re missing are sometimes how to connect those dots or where the opportunities lay. And that’s what you bring to the table. Another tool I think is also understanding the power and influence dynamics in the community. And when I say community, I don’t mean just a geographic community. I mean understanding the community as a sectors. For example, if you’re working in energy understanding in the energy sector or the power players who are the influence players, who are the people who’ve never really had a chance. If you’re saying that you’re going to be involved in sustainable energy, well of course you want to encourage and maintain and bolster and scale up what front runners have already done. You also want to make sure that people who are not normally involved, not normally engaged or who have had little opportunity can have more of an opportunity. And so it’s also looking at how you balance that, those kinds of elements as well. Um, so some sound social analysis, um, and gender analysis I think is important. Understanding what the gender dynamics are in any issue I usually find to be quite useful because it doesn’t just tell you about gendered roles and responsibilities which are important or the differential participation of men and women usually helps to understand things like age differentiation, rural and urban differentiation, class differentiation, ethnicity differentiation, disability and ability differentiations. It usually tends to open up a door where you can actually see how these issues intersect. I think one of the challenges we often have is that sometimes we put these categories into separate boxes as if somehow they affect different people at different times. The reality is that those who are, you know, perpetually or you know, continually and chronically challenged or poor or vulnerable is because they’re being affected by several different challenges. At the same time. You need to to to kind of understand that and better plan and, yeah, and to do that you have to listen. You have to look at the data, but you also have to observe and you have to listen. You have to probe and you have to assess in order to then understand where the entry points may be on how best you may be able to support and enable and who you will need to work with and how you will engage on these issues.

Safa: Absolutely. We don’t live single issue lives. So when it comes to addressing all these social justice issues, it’s very important to have a broader perspective. But in your work, in terms of working with power players or people who have influence or perhaps donors, how would you say that those who are in positions of power and influence, do you think that they have a more genuine commitment to addressing issues in this way with this kind of approach?

Leisa: Well, that’s a tough question to say because you have different people and different layers of donors and funders and actors. So it’s hard to make a generalized statement on this. But what I can say is generally there is a commitment to addressing these issues. I think some unfortunately, sometimes we are not, we’re rushing to respond. And we haven’t always done the critical analysis and understood the context in which we’re working before we are rushing in to help. And I understand the reasons for that because you know, there are deadlines, there are timelines that we need to follow but sometimes — slow in the beginning helps with speed later on. Um, what I would say sometimes also is that persons haven’t got the experience and they don’t have the um, the exposure and they don’t have the tools sometimes to do this work. Sometimes they honestly, some people don’t honestly think about it at all. They, the figure it out during the project. Some people that do, they struggle sometimes because they don’t necessarily have the tools and they don’t know where to get the expertise, um, to be able to do some of this work. Other times it’s also because of the framing of the funding. The funding framing and context itself has not really given attention, or given priority to some of these issues. So even if colleagues are willing and interested, it’s hard to, to put it within the framework that is there. And so for that reason you have to often work on multiple levels, although it has to be said that the funding frameworks are changing, they’re becoming stronger. You know, you have social environmental safeguards, you have quite a few donors and actors who are basically, um, insisting that for example, gender needs to be mainstreamed and that there needs to be gender action plans from many environmental projects. So this is definitely a step forward and that has happened with a lot of help from a lot of different NGOs and international NGOs and actors, etc. But there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done and part of that is that as we do this work, we also improve what we know and we improve our ability to frame and we approved the frameworks we have. So it’s also a bit of an iterative process where you have to be in it in order to understand it and in order to do it better. And so there’s not a linear path to this. And even as you engage with colleagues who may not understand, who may not be interested, there’s always an opportunity to try to change that. Now it’s not always possible. But you learn even from those experiences about what are those barriers to engaging on the issues.

Safa: Right. As you say, it’s not a linear process and it’s hard to gage the understanding or the use of these kinds of approaches by everyone. But when you, when you first started to work in this sector, compared to now, what would you say are some of the ethical issues that were, were resolved, are, or you find that are no longer a problem or a challenge for you?

Leisa: Ooh, again, a tough question because I can’t say that things are never going to be a problem. Again, it depends on the context. It depends on who you’re working with. Depends on the issue and as new issues and new and more complex development problems arise, so do the ethical questions and the ethical questions themselves change and you know, morph with the, with the varying complexities. What I would say is that to compare today to then -one, I think there is much more of a consistent conversation happening on issues of gender and social development in the context of the environment. We have spoken for many years, since 1992, about people and the environment, we just didn’t do it very well, I would say, across the board. So that’s definitely improved where you have analytical frameworks, you have evidence, you have science. So there the person’s going out there to figure out what are the patterns that are there. I mean the last IPCC report actually had a chapter on likelihoods and poverty and I was very honoured to be a part of that process and that was definitely a step forward in terms of looking and as part of that work we also looked at gender as a question and part of that was also understanding the different contestations on how gender was framed, and how gender was being presented, what it meant in this context. So having those debates, having that kind of global report take on the issue and allow for a discussion on those issues and its relevance. It was really important. And since then I’d be able to use the outputs of that for a lot of the work that I’ve done. If I look at the work that IUCN (and others) have done for example on various levels in terms of deforestation, climate change, environmental issues in general, looking at ways to integrate gender in climate change action plans, looking at the ways in which you can integrate gender into the funding mechanisms and the gender policies for the gender and environmental, the global environmental fund or gender policies for the the green climate fund. The fact that we have these and we have drafts and that they’re being discussed and that these are now infused into how large funding actors do their work is definitely a huge step forward. Part of the challenge now is how you institutionalize this at the actor level, at the institutional level of persons who will be receiving those funds and those who will be implementing with those funds. So as I do much of my work, I’m starting to frame my issues a little differently and discuss the, the need for differentiation between institutional mainstreaming and developmental mainstreaming. By that I mean looking at how you institutionalize gender as an objective and an impact and the derivative social impacts that you will want to achieve as well and how you do that at an institutional process level, but then differentiating therefore at a different level how you deal with a substantive technical level of doing the work and making sure that those, um impacts are created and recording those results and also take that experience and shape it into the follow on projects that you’ll be doing. And so I think this broader discussion is starting to happen a little bit more. Other changes I would say is the fact that you have more persons who are working in this field. Not necessarily in all regions, but there’s definitely a cohort and the fact that we can have in 2016, I believe a Global Gender and Environment Outlook which was supported by United Nations Environmental Program with the involvement of different donors and that we have a global report that gives a state of the situation then is also a huge step -looking at all the literature and looking at the issues. The fact that we also had in the Six Global Environmental Report, which I was also involved in, you know, a team of persons looking at gender and working across the chapters, a team looking at equity, and working across the chapters, are already significant steps. Now part of the challenge we have when we’re doing this work, at the global level or the local level is having that debate with, having that engagement with colleagues who come from a natural science kind of perspective who are not used to working in these areas, who don’t understand and some who not really keen on it. And so it’s about how you negotiate and navigate those spaces, I think are still where some of the work needs to be done. We still need more research and investment in research to talk about why it is important to do this work and the benefits that come from — there is still very little research compared to other areas. So that’s an area for the investment that still can be done. We still need to improve how projects and initiatives collect the data about their work and the results so that that helps to also improve. We still struggle to make a business case in some areas. That’s one of the things that I’m working on. Looking at how do you make a case for some particular issues. There’s not always a lot of evidence out there about that actual business case that would allow you to engage with the business sector. For example, the private sector, there’s willingness, but some people want to know what the business case is. What we see is that there are more gender policies out there, but where organizations still struggle is go back to that question, what am I doing tomorrow that I did not do today? What are those things I need to be doing? What are those steps? And again, that’s where I think you need those specializations and institutional gender mainstreaming that’s then linked or looked on to the developmental gender mainstreaming elements and bring those two pieces together. And that includes understanding the institutions you’re dealing with. The difference between a government public institution versus a private sector one. The difference between a bank and a business which may be looking at corporate social responsibility. These are areas I think where we’re still, there’s a lot of work happening, there’s a lot of potential, but there’s still gonna be a need for greater investment and more action and also a bit more activism I would say. In terms of promoting the need, for this work to happen in the midst of looking for profits and looking or new products, etc., there is a need to make sure that we’re contributing and we’re not doing any further harm.

Safa: Right. As you say, there’s a range of actors, there’s the governments, there’s activists, there’s the private sector, there’s social scientists, and then there’s more natural scientists — each provide their own approach to making a positive social change in terms of gender in the environment. But in your experience, which do you think offers perhaps a more effective approach? Or do you really, would you say that it’s hard to think of it that way and that they each really offer complimentary approaches perhaps?

Leisa: I think it’s hard to think of it in that way, and each has some competitive advantages and some areas of expertise that would help to strengthen the ecosystem. I like to think of the fact that we need to start thinking of this work as an ecosystem. What we do affects other parts of the ecosystem and other people. And we all can bring something to the table, but like an ecosystem, we all have to work together because when we don’t work together, we are harming that ecosystem and we’re also harming opportunity. So I think each comes with different specializations and different skills. And what we need is that framework that will allow for them to come together. And then we need to create those spaces and enabling environments for that work to happen and for innovation to be, to be created. Some things are already being done and done well and it just needs to be upscaled and they just need to be more made more available. However, as we also do the work, we also need to ourselves innovate. We all need to step out of our boxes a little bit because as I said, there are continually new challenges, new opportunities. And that means that even if I have 20 years of experience, I still need to be willing to learn and I still need to be willing to adapt. And those are part of the ethical concerns that we also need to think about. Also in terms of how we engage with the people we’re trying to help. For me, one of the big ethical lines is do no further harm. That to me is a credo that you know, we need to keep repeating itself. And if even if I don’t understand the issues, if I am thinking about my work in a way of avoiding as much additional harm in what I do as possible, the answers will be there to a certain extent. And if I don’t have them, I will be pushed to ask other people and to find out what I may not be thinking about. But part of that also is about how you engage and also make sure that you not only look at helping the community, but you help them to help themselves. You engage with them. They have knowledge, they have, whether you call it indigenous knowledge or traditional knowledge, they understand more about the context than you possibly, probably will ever do, in some cases, unless you’re there for a longterm period of time. And even if you are, you still came there after other people. So you have to be able to think about how you, you know, how you are able to bring onboard and allow for that knowledge to come in to help with the design. And when I say design, I don’t just mean design of the project, the analysis of what the problem is and what the solutions are before you even get to the designing. Because if they’re not on board, you are still going to be in a part promotion and part pushing stage. You want to get them to agree on the same things as much as possible. You want to come to an agreement, this is the problem, these are the root causes, this is what we need to be able to do. So I think that that part means that we need to look at the different aspects. I think it’s also important to think about it that way because people don’t also live in a UN box in a bank box in a government box, a lot of people have moved across all of these agencies. So just because you see them working for government now, that’s not the totality of the experience. Sometimes they were, they worked at a time, sometimes they’ve worked to the NGO, sometimes they worked in the community. So that person themselves has a lot of experience that you need to be able to draw out into the particular situation that you have. And so by understanding those complementarities, sometimes you’ve actually had persons who may have forgotten some of the experiences they’ve had or some of the skills they brought to bear in former work. And by the process of engagement, you can actually bring out some of those skills and some of those ideas beyond the end of the particular,, you know, job or job description that they have at the moment. So I think we need to look at it as complimentary and we need to look at it as an ecosystem in terms of what we’re, how we do the work we’re doing and also what we’re trying to achieve.

Safa: Absolutely. As you say, the engagement with and leadership of local communities and the analysis at all stages of a social problem is so key. Can you give us an example, of perhaps a time or a project that you worked on in which you think or you felt that that engagement and that local leadership was done?

Leisa: Well, I would rather state it from a different perspective because I don’t know that I’m in a position to say it was done well. I think the people who say that are the people in the community, they are the ones that really can say that it was done well. It will be easy for me to say that was done well because one, I’ve gotten incentive to say that. And two, it’s helpful, you know, probably, you know, it’s helpful to a broader narrative. What I would see is that I remember one of my first field missions for one of my assignments and that’s when I learned about listening. And I, you know, I went to the community, there were, we were looking, I think it at feeder roads and we were looking at other, you know, uh, community centers maybe, and we were looking at what other kind of elements may be needed to support the empowerment of the community and access to markets. And you know, one of the things that we found was, you know, that the, you know, there was a certain extent of bathing outside. And so my automatic thought was ooh, you know, bathrooms and toilets. But you know, the community was like, no, no. If we have the road and we get to the market, we’ll be able to do with that ourselves. What we need is the strategic input that will allow us to get our goods to the market, will allow us to increase our income and then we ourselves can deal with some of these other issues. And to me, that ability, that clarity of purpose and vision was really critical to how we designed that particular intervention and continued the work that we were going to be able to do at every step of the way, including when we’re working on some community centers later on and really working with them on that work. And while we had limited resources, they put in a huge amount of labor in terms of actually the building, so we would provide the construction supplies, they provided the labor to build their community center. And that is that kind of individual piece of work, but also that broader understanding and that broader engagement that then allows for them to also become fuller partners in the work that you’re trying to do. That’s one example. Another example would be in a post disaster context, just thinking about what kinds of inputs would be important and sometimes, while it’s doing the work, another part is also doing the assessment. And I remember for another activity when we actually did a robust — and we were at the beginning stages of insisting that they had to be a social economic and gender assessment post-disaster and the strength of that document in terms of really pulling out several things that were anecdotal in some cases, but there were also experiential and situational- was really important for the design of initiatives that we did in the immediate aftermath, but also some further work that we did, for example, with the UN Trust Fund for Human Security in terms of really being able to present some of these complex nuances and how they were shaping people’s choices and opportunities and how, in response, we would need to do things a certain way.

Safa: When it comes to working on issues such as resilience and adaptive capacity, could you some examples of work that is being done regarding these issues? Is this something that you feel is, is generally being addressed and it’s, it’s uh, an aspect of the work of gender environment that is receiving some focus?

Leisa: Yes. It can receive more, but yes, I mean I’m aware of a couple of initiatives including one I was involved in designing that we’ll be looking at this issue of gender, but also the issue of the adaptive capacity. Once we get into the conversation of resilience, you have to look at adaptive capacity and who has it and who needs support in building it. And that is when that nuance of understanding what do those gender roles and responsibilities mean, what additional risks do they present? What additional burdens do their present in terms of the work that has to be done reproductively and also productively. And how does that limit the possibility of engagement or even the possibility to receive support from projects that are looking to enhance resilience or to build adaptive capacity? There’s been some good research then about understanding that that includes issues of social organization and that I thought was a really important element to the work that’s been done over the last 15 to 20 years, I’m also aware of other work that I’ve done in Mozambique where we looked at this question. We also looked at what that meant and what that would mean in that context and what are some of the elements that we would need to go in, in order to find out those things we have to do, you know, a limited climate risk and vulnerability assessment. We made sure that there was a way to analyze the responses depending on whether it was men and women responding. But we also asked gendered questions about, you know, oh, this, you know, what kind of agricultural activities or business activities people were involved in. What was the purpose? Was it subsistence or was it also about cash generation? You know, about you know, generation and commercial. You know, what were the constraints that you’re dealing with? Why were you, you know, why were people, why was there a certain dependence on still on charcoal production for energy and what were the alternatives that we can present that were affordable, that were maintainable? And also looking at the elements of that work that were nature-based, which means low tech and relatively low maintenance because we’re building on what nature already does, whether it’s certain plants, whether it’s looking at wind breaks, whether it’s looking at rain water harvesting, what is the combination of technology and non technology or native nature based solution that would help to deal with some of the critical issues that where limiting the adaptive capacity of individuals and the adaptive capacity of communities. So there is more work on this, this work is becoming richer in terms of understanding the social and gender considerations and implications and necessities of doing that work. But there’s more that could be done.

Safa: I see. Some, some practitioners in agencies they take on what they call the human rights based approach to the work that they do. Do you find that this is something that’s useful for your work or do you think that, um, given you know, cultural relativism and, um, national sovereignty and such issues, it’s hard to use that approach? What are your thoughts on that?

Leisa: No, I think the human rights based approach remains a very effective way of looking at a rights based approach in general. So when we’re looking at these issues, when we are looking, for example, at gender, we cannot just look at practical needs. That is often where we do things that are immediately relevant, but they often have no long term staying power. We also need to look at the strategic needs. Those strategic needs, if you look at some, like an analytical framework that’s been developed by IUCN , means usually it’s focused on two large areas, but it means other things as well. One of the key ones is access and control over resources. That control element is really important and that’s where rights come in, whether it’s about land or an access to certain types of natural resources and the ability to use them and to use them free or with certain requirements and responsibilities. That is a critical point. The other one is leadership, the right to participate, the right to engage, the right to influence. And some times these are procedural, but they’re also really critical for who gets to decide who gets to, to condition the results and the process that we’re doing. So the, the rights based approach is really important, but also understanding that we have several levels of rights. We have economic rights, we have social rights, we have political rights and we also have developmental rights and we also have cultural rights and there are also some environmental natural resource rights. I think often what happens is that when we discuss human rights, we often talk about political rights. They are critical and they’re important, but they’re not the only ones that are important. There’s a whole other set of rights that are there that we also need to think about. And we need to think about how they are not only described and framed, but how are people exercising those? Often that’s where the rubber hits the road. Something can be written in the law, it can be written down, but can people exercise it? Do they even know they have it? Do they even know what they can demand and from whom do they know where to go if it’s not possible or their right is denied? To whom do they seek redress? Is there a grievance mechanism where they can put themselves forward? So there is all of that framework I think that is becoming more and more relevant to the work that we do, not just in gender and environment, but also in some other work that I’m doing on, eliminating violence against women and girls. Often what we find is that the persons who are the target, women and girls, after often have very little understanding and knowledge of the right that are inshrined in national legislation about them. Nor do they understand how they exercise these rights, who is responsible, who is the duty bearer, that is supposed to make sure that they have and what are the grievance mechanisms and what are the redress mechanisms if they don’t feel their rights are being , you know, have been addressed or addressed adequately. And so I think this discussion is becoming more and more relevant. Of course, issues of national sovereignty are relevant, but that’s where you look at the national legislation. Of course there are global norms, other global normative frameworks that a lot of countries have signed on to. But one of the key elements of what we look at in the context of a country is what does the legislation, the country say? What does that transition between the global normative framework and what the states legislation says. Now most countries have gaps in that legislation and policies that say that they’ve made a commitment to something else. And it’s about the navigated space between what the law says and what the countries committed itself to doing that we often find ourselves in. And that’s the space you engage with them on and you engage with them on, with government, you engage with them on in terms of the civil society organizations and you engage them, also the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of such efforts. And that is in the space in which you start to navigate, you know, that space and understand what these things mean tangibly and realistically and in real time, to all of those interests and actors.

Safa: As you say, there’s a big difference between what is written in line was actually practiced, what is actually commonly known and peoples exercise of their rights. But on a more personal level, when you think about when you first began your career and today, would you say that your motivation or what drives you has changed or, or what is it that you compels you to do this work?

Leisa: I think my passion, my motivations have probably intensified. I think now as I work as a consultant where I’m involved in different consultancies, it intensifies because I’m dealing with different angles of the, of the problem. And as I look and I observe, I realized how we still struggled to talk to each other. How we still struggle to engage. How we still struggle to learn. One of my, pet peeves often is when we do our work, particularly in the environmental field, a lot of our work requires some level of behavior change. But the people who are crafting and designing projects are often not asking the people who do behavior change on a daily basis for advice. And I keep asking the question, why not? Even if it’s not directly what you’re working on, they have got the experience and the practice on behavior change. I keep saying if you talk behavior change, you talk to a HIV person working in HIV aids because they have done the work on that , you know at fundamental levels and there are ways to have that conversation that would allow you to begin to think about how that work, those lessons can be adapted to what you need. Even the conversation would be healthy between both sides in terms of that adaptation requirement. Also how you know, how you engage with the social sector who are doing that, whether it’s in education, whether it’s youth issues, whether it’s addressing issues of the elderly, whether it’s looking at the poor and making sure that systems are mechanisms are in place to support the poor. So when you provide an employment program and skills, part of that is looking at behaviour change. That includes looking at working with the person seeking employment, but it also requires working with the employer to perhaps be open minded about who they’re hiring and why they’re hiring that person and how they are hiring that person. And so I still think that those are spaces. And so I get, you know, as much as you think and you worry about why it’s still still a frustrating element. You also get excited about the opportunity to crack the nut in some way or to contribute to cracking that nut. And you know, it is often variable, every conversation, whether you can plant a seed in somebody’s mind, whether you can, you know, share some of your excitement about the opportunities and the possibilities of being able to do work that still motivates you. When you go to, you know, you’re on a field trip and you, you hear from someone who’s actually doing the social and the environmental work hand in hand and you think to yourself isn’t that fantastic? And you then think about, well, how can I learn from this experience? How can I translate this experience? How can I talk and promote this experience. Those are the things that continue to motivate me. But I mean, fundamentally it’s about, you know, you think about those persons you’ve met who have been beaten back by circumstances, who have been beaten back by the impact of a hurricane, who have sat in their house or outside their house or in shelter for weeks, if not months, you know, waiting for support, putting together their own levels of support, supporting their families and are still finding the capacity and the courage to go out there and to explore new opportunities. You think about the, the, you know, the engagement of, you know, women and girls who are affected by HIV, boys and men who were affected. You think about the stories of people who have been abused, who have been exploited, and you think about the fact that they still get up every day. They still try to make a difference in their lives. They come to meetings, they share painful stories, and not just to help themselves, but to also reinforce the fact that these are real things affecting the lives of people. And they also want to reach out and help other people — that cannot help but inspire me to continue in the work that I’m doing.

Safa: Absolutely. The courage that you witness can be such a source of strength and motivation to continue doing this work. When you, work with others and you have disagreements on issues or as you say, pet peeves come up. Could you speak to us about what your approaches are to resolving those?

Leisa: Well on that, you know, you try to use your emotional intelligence as effectively as you can. So you try not to, you know, to attack, you try to be constructive. You also try to understand, and sometimes in my probing I’m saying I’m not challenging you. I’m just trying to understand what is the barrier here? What for you is the challenge? Sometimes the challenge is time, sometimes there’s knowing the right person to speak to. And then my question will be, well, if time is an issue, what can we do to help with time- if knowing the right person to speak to, can I help you by pointing you to in the direction of people who do this work , everyday, and they work on these issues and they know a little or enough about this issue to be able to engage with you where you need to be engaged. It also is about understanding sometimes is the space now or will it perhaps need to be engaged at a different level? I mean, obviously where I push and I try to nudge? I had a boss who said, you know, you don’t give up easily. And I’m like, no, I don’t actually. I said, but I think that’s kind of bred into the kind of work I’ve decided to take on. This is not for the faint hearted. But you know, it’s trying to find a balance between persistence and constructive engagement. And also I try to do it in a way where you’re not just taking away or you’re not just pointing out what’s not happening. You also point to where they’re actually doing some work, but they may not have seen it in the way in which it could be seen as a path to resolving some of their problems. Sometimes having a fresh pair of eyes on the issue is a contribution you can make and then sometimes it’s by trying to provide them with the kinds of tools and capacities that will help them to deal with the issue right there and then, and sometimes you’re a network and your knowledge of your network helps you to be able to bring that, bring that forward. And sometimes you get frustrated and sometimes you have to be careful not to let too much of that frustration get in to your voice and to the way that you’re engaging so it’s not to no longer be as constructive, but sometimes it’s also important to let people know that you find as a source of frustration because it’s been an issue that we keep — because we, you know what? We get talking about multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary for two decades or more, but we’re still struggling to get to, to do it and to do it right and to do it effectively. And so those are some of my frustrations, but I think what we’re seeing more and more is the need to not just be multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. What we need to also be is intersectional, which is understanding that ecosystem in which the person or the community that you’re living in lives and where are the links between various issues that will make or break your intervention. And so I think that’s a discussion that needs to happen more and more and that’s a lesson coming from gender and social work, that is really important, I think for work and environment and sustainable development.

Safa: Would you say that there has been someone or perhaps a few people who have been really influential in your career or have taught you something or modelled behaviour that you really took on and has stuck with you throughout the years?

Leisa: Oh Wow. There are lots of people. I mean, the thing is that I think from every engagement you learn something, even if you don’t know that you’ve learned it, sometimes it takes you weeks, months and years to see that there was a light bulb moment, that, okay, I went on. And that has either influenced you then or is perfectly positioned to influence you today. But yeah, I mean, there are many people that have influenced me. I had a boss who was really a strong advocate on emotional intelligence and I admit that at the time I didn’t really always see how relevant it was, but I did go back to her years later and say, you know, I see now what you’re talking about and it does make a difference. And I, you know, and I think it’s something you work at every day because there are new challenges. And I tell people that, you know, I try to be a optimistic, happy person, but some of the issues that we’re dealing with are heartbreaking, you know, somewhat soul destroying in some ways, you know, and you have to kind of renew your faith in humanity sometimes so as not to be bitter or to be completely negative or to be paranoid. And I think what I also learned from another colleague was the process of renewal. And so for some people that is physical exercise. I’m terrible at that. I need to do it more. But I just found other ways of renewing, of renewal, which for me is engaging with my friends or engaging with other people on a social level, making jewelry for example, I find extremely therapeutic. So, you know, I find, you know, as I discussed, I remember once with a group of different agency heads and actor heads at the time, each person in the end had something that they did or I mean maybe not, they wouldn’t have called it spiritual renewal, but I think it did have that benefit. And it was an important lesson for me. We need to make sure and pay attention to our spiritual renewal. And I don’t mean that in a religious sense. I literally mean our spirit, in the many forms that it takes, including the enthusiasm and the optimism that you can bring too difficult, sensitive and protracted challenges. You know, none of the issues that I’m working with are simply solved, in some ways they’re wicked and complex issues. And for that you need your energy. You need renewal. No, there are many other people across my career, including those people who I didn’t agree with, or who I thought were making mistakes, those mistakes were also learning opportunities. Those who you know, may not have been, you know, always as strong as perhaps they needed to be. Those also were learning experiences for me because I think it’s important, not just a wallow in those and the missed opportunities, but to recognize it. The commitment that you perhaps should be making is to avoid making that same mistake. You’ve already seen it. And you’ve seen the consequences of it. That’s not to say you make no mistakes, but you shouldn’t be repeating those that you’ve already seen. And so those are some of the, that is some of the way I would answer that particular question.

Safa: It’s nice to hear that you’ve had such positive experiences with many different colleagues throughout your career and even those who perhaps modelled behaviour that you didn’t appreciate, you learned something from it. But thinking about the future of the industry and the work that you are doing in terms of creativity or innovation or technology, when you think about the years to come in terms of gender and environment and the work that you do, what are your thoughts and your feelings about, about the future?

Leisa: Well, I’m mostly optimistic and excited about the potential. I think that there are a lot of young dynamic persons, both male and female who are out there who I think will add a lot of critical energy, new insights and voices. And some of that’s already happening. Sometimes it’s not easy navigating the space between, what I would say are the, I don’t want to use the word old guard, but the existing guard and the, and the new voices and the new, including those who see value in disruption. And so I think it will be important. It will be exciting to see what happens there. Oh, we don’t throw the baby with the bath water. So we want to learn and stand on the shoulders, on the foundations of the work that’s been done in the past. But also as we face new challenges, a new complexities, we need to think in different ways. I think that the gender and environment space, it’s going to be a particular exciting one in terms of, you know, if current policies, funding guidelines really have even 50% of the impact that they aim to have. I think we will have, a new dynamic in terms of looking at, gender and environment. We will continue to face challenges where we know there are social norms and practices that, you know, present barriers to dealing with these issues that are, you know, that are, you know, that try to push back. And we are dealing with the reality of, new engagements or new discussions about, how we see ourselves morally, religiously, there are, you know, issues that are, that come up all the time. What is LGBTQIA that challenge some and cause questioning for others, whether it’s dealing with issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights that continue to persist. But the reality is that I think we are entering into a new space of discussion and engagement on these issues, Sometimes it’s disappointing, frustrating and annoying sometimes to see, to think about, sometimes, the steps forward and a step back. But I think that we also have a huge amount of opportunity to really open up the space for gender and environment in different ways, including how we make sure that, you know, women and girls, men and boys have the opportunities they need to be a full human being, productive and peaceful human beings and really to contribute to sustainable development. And that includes dealing with the impact that social norms and practices — a variety of prominent, powerful practices, have on society. I always try to say that it’s key to remember that the box that holds back women also holds back men. And once we start understanding that and we start actively trying to understand that box, stretching it, open, speeding doors and windows in the box, creating new boxes or avoiding boxes all together, I think would be the, would it be the best way, that as we do that we can bring everyone along together is to the benefit of everyone. Um, and I’m really hoping that when it comes to fundamental issues of, the barriers to the full participation of women and girls, children, men and boys in some way, as well in terms of violence and sexual and gender based violence. When we start to recognize it, if one of us is not safe, none of us is safe, and that this is everybody’s business, that we can start to have a different approach to these issues. We understand people are busy, people have families, they have their own problems, but at the end of the, somebody else’s problems are sooner or later perhaps our problem, whether it’s because it’s your neighbor or it’s because you’ve got jury duty. But you know, we don’t have that many degrees of separation in the globalized world that we live in and there are benefits to ensuring that at the level of society that we’re all working for peaceful, inclusive, and sustainable communities as much as we can. And that we’re really prepared to work together, to solve the problems we have. Because there’s not one of us that has all the answers and all the solutions and all the ideas.

Safa: Absolutely. As you say, working together is so important. I just want to ask you if there’s any final points that you would like to share or any important issues you think perhaps we didn’t touch on that are really important to you that you would like to bring up?

Leisa: There are so many things I can say. Okay. It’s important I think to just think about — each of us interacts with the environment in some way. Each of us is affected by the environment in some way. Each of us is dependent on the environment in some way. It’s from that, that we start to understand, how gendered norms and social practices that in some cases we think of as culture, but in some cases are habits, affect how people see the environment and natural resources, how they use them, how they are affected by them and their level of access and control over those resources. That is the where the rubber hits the road for a lot of work, particularly at the household level when we start thinking of female headed households, single parent households, we think about elderly men with, you know, who live alone for example, which is becoming a bit of an issue as well, and in some cases how, you know, the patterns of social interaction they’ve had in their youth, limit, their capacity for social capital building and expansion when they’re older. And so often they don’t have the networks where people are coming to check on them, people are looking after their health and wellbeing and they don’t have the social network sometimes that older women can have, particularly through church or through community activities. Understanding those issues, understanding how water availability, or water access, how, disasters impact on those households differently. That when you’re talking about resilience and recovery, one of the big boom sectors is construction, and in some parts of the world, construction is still a very male dominated sector — means that people are not being, having access to certain jobs. And to the areas where the economy is booming and therefore they don’t have the inputs, economically or financially that would help them to recover and help them to be able to take advantage of other opportunities. That when we, you know, we understand how certain norms and social practices limit the opportunities and capabilities and perhaps do not put additional pressures on households — that we understand how those hustles are different from others where those social norms and practices may not be so evident or may not create such a burden. When we understand, you know, the differences across our community or you know, our province, or our neighbourhood and the country and that, yes, in a country like in Barbados, we’re all technically exposed to climate change. But we’re all not affected by it in the same way. We will not all be affected by sea level rise in the same way. And the differential adaptive capacities are driven by not just economic factors or situational factors, but they’re also different, you know, driven by social factors. I think if we can improve on the understanding of that, the connecting of those dots, if we can improve on the framing of those issues and the investment in responding to those issues in every project, then I think I, you know, I think we will have taken the process a lot further along. And I think you will really start to address, the intersections between people on the planet, and issues of prosperity and peace. Because I think, no, I think very few of us are in doubt that if we are really looking at the trends and patterns of resources out there, some of them are dimensioning quite rapidly, that we’re going to have increasing tensions and conflict, potentially over resources, including things like water. And we need to start thinking those through and we need to start preparing and building those in, into how we do the work that we do. But as I said, I am hopeful that with the experienced voices and the newer voices that with new research, better research, more research, that with more voices, more hands, more brains, more engagement, that we will be able to really create some magic, around issues of sustainable development and particularly looking at how we make sure that we can address some of the, you know, longterm power differentials including who has access to resource and the fact that some countries may I have access to more resources because of their natural endowments, but also because of their ability to engage multinationally and internationally, they also have access to other resources and those will also create opportunities and potentially challenges that will need to be addressed in the coming years.

Safa: Yes, as you say, there’s so many interactions between people and the planet and there’s a lot of important work we could all be doing in terms of addressing these issues, learning more about these issues, collaborating on these issues. But I really want to thank you so much for speaking with us today and sharing your knowledge and experiences. There’s so much to unpack in this conversation. I feel like I definitely have to go back and listen to it again and really take notes and take it all in. So thank you so much for sharing all that.

Leisa: Well, thank you for the opportunity. I’m glad that we were able to do this today and hopefully this will stimulate some debate online. Hopefully it will, inspire, you know, I’m gratified that they’re actually some young ladies that I’m talking to who want to do work in this field. You know, I’m gratified that we have, you know, global actors, children, who are really engaging for example, on the climate debate. And so certainly, you know, if I need to come back, I’m happy to do so, but I’m certainly hoping that we, you know, this opportunity and conversation we’ve had can also spur other conversations and maybe spur some other debates and also spur some, action and some new ways. But I think if we can have more debates and we can engage more, I think those are already positives and important elements of part of the work that needs to be done as well.

Safa: Yes, I really feel it will. That’s the intention behind these conversations — to really have thought provoking discussions that spur actions for critical thinking. So thank you so much again and we just wish you continued success in all your future work.

Leisa: Well, thank you again for the opportunity.

Safa: Thank you so much to our listeners. To keep up with our weekly podcast, please subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, and Google podcast platforms where you also have an opportunity to rate and review the episodes and leave your comments and also share with your friends if you would like. You can also follow us on Instagram where our handle is @rethinkingdevelopment. If you have any listener questions that you would like me to ask any future guests, please feel free to email them to us at rethinkingdevelopmentpodcast@gmail.com. I look forward to continuing similar conversations with you all next time. Until then, take care.