Entry #1: August 29 – September 2, 2011

          In 1997, Bina Agarwal of the Institute of Economic Growth in Delhi, India, wrote a fascinating article on the ways in which gender issues, poverty struggles, and environmental degradation are interlinked. Although these three entities ostensibly have little in common, by analyzing state level data, Agarwal was able to illustrate the connections between these three issues. In her research, Agarwal utilized what she terms the Gender-Environment-Poverty Vulnerability index (GEP(V)) to quantify the ways in which gender, the environment, and poverty are related to each other throughout India. Agarwal was able to use this index to illustrate the regional variations between these factors and identify the areas in the greatest need of environmental action and social reform.

          According to Agarwal, the ability of India’s impoverished inhabitants to access natural resources is decreased by environmental degradation and the privatization and statization of commercial resources, with the former reducing the overall availability of natural resources, and the latter resulting in the unequal distribution of what little resources are available. Among the more prominent examples of environmental degradation are the excessive use of pesticides on crops, which decreases the health and fertility of the soil, as well as the overdrawing and subsequent lowering of the ground water table as a result of unregulated tube well installations (Agarwal, 24).

          The statization and privatization of natural resources are part of the reason that the environment is deteriorating at its current rate. Natural resources are viewed by the state as commodities that can be exploited to gain a profit at the expense of environmental health. Privatization also is an unfortunate mechanism of environmental degradation and resource mismanagement. Privatization is the process by which resources are taken away from the community and unevenly distributed amongst the people of a region. An example of this is the allowance of farmers to sink as many tube wells into the ground as they want. The effects of this unregulated practice are two-fold: farmers with the funds to build tube wells receive more than their fair share of water, and because there is little regulation on installing these wells and tapping into the groundwater, the water table has been severely lowered in many regions of India (25). Tube well installation and utilization should definitely be more closely regulated by the government to prevent the over pumping. Additionally, it would be beneficial to install percolation tanks in these areas to promote artificial recharge and raise the groundwater level table (Kumar, Singh, & Sharma, 802).

          According to Agarwal, the people most affected by the degradation of natural resources are those living in impoverished, rural areas. In these locations, people live in very close proximity to the environment and are dependent on community resources. As a result, any depletion of natural resources or degradation of the environment will result in widespread suffering in these economically impoverished, rural areas (26).

          Within the rural communities themselves, women are at the greatest risk of suffering from the effects of environmental degradation. Because of the pronounced gender division of labor, women are left with the task of venturing into the forests to find sustenance and walking to wells and rivers to fetch water (28). Women are the ones most closely interacting to the polluted and degrading environment, and are thus at the greatest risk of suffering from water-borne illnesses. This gender division of labor is ridiculous and harmful to the rural communities. Risk of environmentally caused illnesses aside, men and women should equally share the responsibility of gathering resources from the environment. Agarwal brings up an interesting point when she mentions the tendency of men spend their incomes on personal items, while women are more likely to utilize their incomes on items for the whole family (27). Thus, dividing the responsibility of resource management between the sexes should result in healthier, better-provisioned families.

          Ultimately, Agarwal was able to tie together the factors of gender bias, environmental degradation, and poverty by creating the GEP(V) index. With this index, she was able to quantify the regional variation between women’s well being and the environment. Overall, women residing in the Northern part of India are much more economically, socially, and medically at risk than women living in the southern regions of India. According to the GEP(V) index, Kerala is most ideal place for women to thrive. Kerala possessed the highest female to male sex ratio (indicating less than average gender bias) and the highest female literacy rate (indicating that women are being educated). Annual rainfall levels and percentage forest area values for Kerala were both adequate, indicating that the environment was healthy. Kerala had an overall GEP(V) index of 0.28. Conversely, Bihar was identified as the worst state for women to live in. This state had a lower sex ratio and a lower female literacy rate than Kerala.  Bihar’s overall GEP(V) index was 0.88 (37).

          The most interesting discovery of Agarwal’s study was that high levels of prosperity do not necessarily equate to gender equality. The states of Punjab and Haryana were examples of this relationship. Although Punjab and Haryana were found to be agriculturally prosperous and had low levels of poverty, both of these states low female to male sex ratios indicating a gender bias. I am looking forward to seeing for myself how women are treated in India as we travel from the southeast to the north.

References:

Agarwal, B. (1997). Gender, Environment and Poverty Interlinks: Regional Variations and Temporal Shifts in Rural India, 1971-91. World Development, 25(1), 23-52.

Kumar R., Singh, R. D., Sharma, K. D., (2005). Water resources of India, Current Science, 89 (5):794-811.