Gender, Culture, and Consent: Doing Development with (not to) Indigenous and Local Communities

If a development project arrives with the best of intentions but the wrong assumptions, it can still cause harm. That risk is especially high when “gender solutions” are copied from Western contexts and dropped into Indigenous or other local communities without real partnership. This post lays out why culture and lived realities matter, what international law already requires, what the evidence shows when we ignore that, and how to design projects that are both gender-responsive and community-led.

Why culture and lived realities matter for “gender work”

“Gender” isn’t a single, universal experience; it’s shaped by race, class, language, age, disability, land ties, and more. Legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) named this the problem of intersectionality: people sit at the intersection of multiple power structures, so one-size-fits-all gender fixes often fail, or even reproduce inequality. UN Women (2022) operationalizes this by urging intersectional gender analysis across the full program cycle.

For Indigenous women and girls, those intersections are stark: discrimination is often simultaneous (as women, as Indigenous, sometimes as rural or low-income), compounding barriers to services, land, safety, and decision-making (UN Women, 2021). Reports by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII, 2023) emphasize that Indigenous women must be agents in their own development, not passive recipients.

It’s not optional: FPIC and consultation are legal and policy baselines

International norms are clear: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), not just “consultation”, is the minimum standard for projects that affect Indigenous peoples’ lands, resources, or culture.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) requires states to obtain FPIC before approving projects affecting Indigenous lands and resources (Articles 19 and 32).

ILO Convention 169 (International Labour Organization, 1989) obliges governments to consult Indigenous peoples through their own institutions whenever policies may affect them.

World Bank Environmental & Social Standard 7 (World Bank, 2018) sets out FPIC processes for projects involving Indigenous peoples, emphasizing meaningful engagement throughout the project life cycle.

Put plainly: if your development project will touch Indigenous territories or ways of life, community-defined consent is a right, not a courtesy.

What goes wrong when we ignore culture and consent

Decades of evaluation show that “technically correct” interventions can fall flat, or backfire, when they don’t fit people’s lives.

Clean cookstoves: A randomized evaluation in India found that initial reductions in smoke exposure disappeared within two years, with no lasting health benefits, because households didn’t or couldn’t use and maintain the stoves as designers expected (Hanna et al., 2016).

Rural sanitation: Studies in Odisha, India documented widespread non-use of subsidized latrines due to social norms, privacy beliefs, and design/location issues invisible to “build more toilets” campaigns (Coffey & Spears, 2018).

Infrastructure on Indigenous lands: When dams, mines, or roads are planned without FPIC, communities mobilize to defend land and culture. Evidence from Chile’s hydropower conflicts shows how ignoring consent creates predictable resistance and legal battles (McGee, 2017).

The lesson is not “do nothing.” It’s design with communities from the start, on their terms.

What works: participation, decolonizing methods, and women’s leadership

Participatory approaches shift who defines problems and success. Chambers (1997) argues for “putting the first last”, handing analytic authority to people who live with the issues.

Decolonizing methodologies (Smith, 2012) remind us that Western research frames have historically extracted from Indigenous communities. Ethical work means privileging Indigenous knowledge, protocols, and data sovereignty.

Centering women’s decision-making improves both equity and environmental outcomes. Agarwal (2009) shows that women’s meaningful presence in forest governance in South Asia led to better forest regeneration and more equitable resource use.

A practical blueprint: designing gender-responsive, community-led projects

a) Begin with an intersectional, locally led gender analysis.

Combine intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) with Moser’s distinction between practical and strategic gender needs (Moser, 1993) and Kabeer’s resources–agency–achievements framework (Kabeer, 1999). Conduct this analysis with local women and traditional authorities.

b) Follow FPIC as a process, not a single meeting.

FAO (2016) and IFAD (2017) manuals detail step-by-step FPIC practices: timelines, local-language information, childcare, and women-only spaces for deliberation.

c) Share power in governance and benefits.

Co-design committees with guaranteed seats for women and youth ensure true participatory governance and benefit-sharing (Accountability Framework, 2022).

d) Prototype with local practice, then iterate.

Test interventions on a small scale and adapt based on community feedback (Hanna et al., 2016; Coffey & Spears, 2018).

e) Measure what communities say matters.

Pair donor indicators with locally chosen markers of wellbeing (OECD-DAC, 2018).

f) Keep learning and do no harm.

Use conflict-sensitive approaches like Anderson’s Do No Harm (1999) to identify unintended consequences early.

Gender-just development with Indigenous and local communities isn’t about importing the “right” Western toolkit. It’s about consent, co-design, and context, grounded in rights (UNDRIP, ILO 169), in evidence (what people actually do and value), and in methods that return decision-making power to those most affected. When women and community institutions lead, projects last, and lives improve on terms people recognize as their own.


References

  • Accountability Framework Initiative. (2022). Operational Guidance on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
  • Agarwal, B. (2009). Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68(11).
  • Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  • Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications.
  • Coffey, D., & Spears, D. (2018). Where India Goes: Abandoned Toilets, Stunted Development and the Costs of Caste. Harper Collins.
  • Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140.
  • FAO. (2016). Free, Prior and Informed Consent Manual.
  • Hanna, R., Duflo, E., & Greenstone, M. (2016). Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(1), 80–114.
  • IFAD. (2017). How to Do Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
  • International Labour Organization. (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169).
  • Kaleer, N. (1999). Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464.
  • McGee, B. (2017). Dams, displacement and development: Indigenous communities and hydroelectric projects in Chile. Water Alternatives, 10(2).
  • Moser, C. (1993). Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. Routledge.
  • OECD-DAC. (2018). Guidance on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation.
  • Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
  • UN Women. (2021). Indigenous Women and Intersectionality: Challenges and Opportunities.
  • UN Women. (2022). Intersectionality Resource Guide and Toolkit.
  • UNDRIP. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  • UNPFII. (2023). Report on the Rights of Indigenous Women and Girls.
  • World Bank. (2018). Environmental and Social Framework: ESS7 – Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Capacity Building vs Education vs Training: Why the Differences Matter

  When working with local communities, one of the most significant challenges lies in identifying the right approach to drive meaningful and sustainable development. The terms "capacity building," "education," and "training" are often used interchangeably, yet they represent distinct concepts with unique purposes, methodologies, and outcomes. Failing to differentiate between them can lead to poorly designed projects that miss their objectives or fail to meet the needs of the community. This blog delves into the nuances of these three approaches, exploring their roles, key differences, and how they can be effectively employed in community development. Along the way, we’ll also discuss how to assess community needs, align project objectives, and measure impact for each. What Is Capacity Building? At its core, capacity building is about enabling individuals, organizations, or communities to develop the skills, resources, and systems they need to achieve...
Read more

Human Connection: A Key Tool for Lasting Results in Conservation and Development

 In a world increasingly defined by technological solutions and data-driven approaches to global challenges, we often overlook the most fundamental ingredient for success in conservation and development initiatives: human connection. While scientific knowledge, policy frameworks, and funding are essential, the ability to forge meaningful relationships across diverse stakeholders ultimately determines whether conservation and development efforts endure beyond initial implementation phases. The Missing Link in Traditional Approaches For decades, conservation and development projects have followed a familiar pattern: external experts arrive with predetermined solutions, implement them with varying degrees of local consultation, and then depart—often leaving behind initiatives that gradually lose momentum once external support disappears. This phenomenon, sometimes called the "project cycle trap," stems from a fundamental oversight: treating human relationships as secondary t...
Read more

The Stories That Bind Us: Why Narrative Matters More Than Data When Fighting for Our Planet

After fifteen + years working in conservation, from village meetings in rural Ecuador to boardrooms in Cambridge, I've learned something that no university course ever taught me: the most powerful weapon against biodiversity loss isn't a spreadsheet. It's a story. Let me start with a confession. When I first joined Rare, fresh-faced and armed with a degree in environmental science and an MsC, I thought conservation was about presenting irrefutable facts. Show people the data on deforestation rates, explain the carbon cycle, present the economic case for ecosystem services—surely that would be enough to change hearts and minds? I was spectacularly wrong. My first real lesson came during a community meeting with coffee farmers in the Peruvian Andes. I'd prepared what I thought was a compelling presentation about watershed protection, complete with graphs showing erosion rates and water quality metrics. Fifteen minutes in, I could see eyes glazing over. An elderly farm...
Read more