summary paper - Alliance of Religions and Conservation

transparency and equality, rather that the transparency was one sided from their part. There existed a
paternalism of partnership.
Experiences of inequality on the one hand and dominance from the donor part on the other form the basis
of the criteria for partnership worked out by Christian and Muslim faith communities presented to us by
the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC). Recognizing that religious communities and faithbased
groups play an important role in many peoples´ lives and in society and therefore “could bring to
bear relevant traditions, teachings, and understandings of our relationship with the environment and
human development”, as is stated in the conference presentation, ARC works out from the presumption
that the faith communities are relevant partners to major economical institutions as the World Bank and
states like the Norwegian. But is this true And: If so, what are the costs of such partnership given the
criteria presented to us by ARC (I must here confess that my presentation is based on the Muslim and
Christian criteria, because I only got the Buddhist yesterday here at the conference, but I do not think that
that would change my main conclusion).
The presumed context of power that is at the bottom of the criteria is the one between donor and receiver,
between a “North” and a “South”. As a discussion of power within partnership this is important, but not
enough. It is not adequate to discuss power in a North­South perspective addressing the issues of
political and economical power and inequality, when at the same time leaving out probably the main
conflict of power related to religion, and that is gender. The criteria presented are mostly gender blind, or
at best I would say that they are gender blind, though I suspect that it is not blindness but rather
awareness of this problem that has resulted in the lack of gender or reference to women in the criteria.
The potential conflict in partnership not talked about neither in the Muslim and Christian criteria nor in the
conference presentation and hardly in the discussions we have had so far, is the conflict between religion,
gender and power. More precisely it is the problem of human rights and gender equality. There has been
a mentioning of human rights as being central to partnership, but what does that mean for women Does
it also apply to them These are troublesome questions, but they need to be asked.
With very few exceptions, the norm within all the world religions is that a gender based hierarchy and
segregation are constitutive to the religious and social order. Women are neither seen nor related to as
equal to men nor having the same rights. When ARC therefore introduces to us partnership criteria that
states that “existing structure of the community should be respected and underlined”, as said in the
Muslim criteria, I think this ought to challenge the World Bank, UNDP or the Norwegian government,
because what does such a statement mean from a gender perspective As most existing structures in a
community are male dominated, one consequence of entering into a partnership with a religious
community based on such a criteria, would in most cases mean accepting and supporting faith based
discrimination of women. That would contradict one core value within for example the Norwegian
government, namely womens ´ human rights and equality to men. It would violate the human rights of
women. It would lead to a strengthening of the power of those already in power. Is equality of women
something that is negotiable whereas male domination is not This is an important question to raise in
order to
I am not suggesting that gender segregated communities can not form a basis for development and
environmental projects. But when such projects are performed within a community based on gendered
hierarchy and segregation these projects will remain outside the realm of power, the project and their
women being the constant other (cf the presentation by Marja­Liisa Swantz). Very often good projects run
by and very often for women (or children or elderly), are fundamental to the livelihood of the community
they live in. But these same projects are seldom accounted for and do even more seldom challenge the
power structure. As a consequence women´s work load often increases without increasing their rights.
One example could be the important work of care for HIV/Aids infected and affected that many women
perform. This is fundamental to the communities, but it very ofte takes place in a form that simply confirms
the segregation between men and women: Women become the caring mothers for all the sick or affected
in a community, but their right to their own sexuality, the right to say no to sex with a man or even their
husband, is denied them. 23 It is therefore not enough to discuss power as a North­South question. When
the issue is religious communities, power from a gender perspective has to be addressed.
23
The reason for taking up the issue of women´s rights to say no to their husbands is the problem of HIV/Aids
infecting faithful women through promiscuous husbands.
52