Man in the Biosphere – Woman in the Kitchen

I really didn’t want to bang on again about the Noosa Biosphere Reserve, but the 10 Year periodic review of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation (NBRF) – destined for UNESCO in Paris – just descended on Noosa Council (a year late) and, among various contentious aspects, one stood out.

It was a section about the participation of women in public life. A piece of writing so dated it just looks like a weird attempt to gloss over an appalling track record of women’s participation in NBRF’s activities using an antiquated ‘limited by nature’ argument.

‘Man and the Biosphere’ forever more?

UNESCO’s ‘Man and the Biosphere’ (MAB) always has been an unfortunate term and it was sad that delegates at the last global Biosphere conference in Lima, Peru, did not move to change it to something more inclusive – such as ‘Humanity and the Biosphere’. After all, times are changing.

With the #metoo movement having global repercussions on unacceptable male behaviour, domestic violence trauma ripping through our communities, a stubbornly persistent and irrational gender wage gap, escalating poverty amongst women over 50 and social injustices, the eyes of the world have finally become fixed on how organisational behaviour helps or hinders the achievement of gender equality.

MAB and women participation

As former Executive Officer of NBRF, I undertook preparatory research for this Biosphere review. In doing so, I noticed how other reviews – such as that submitted by the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve in Victoria – also tiptoed around the gender equality issue.

This is the full statement that Biospheres are asked to address in UNESCO’s official review form:

2.4.4 Women’s roles. Do women participate in community organizations and decision-making processes? Are their interests and needs given equal consideration within the biosphere reserve? What incentives or programmes are in place to encourage their representation and participation? (e.g. was a “gender impact assessment” carried out?) Are there any studies that examine a) whether men and women have different access to and control over sources of income and b) which sources of income do women control? If so, provide reference of these studies and/or a paper copy in an annex.

Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve (page 18 in its Periodic Review document) covered this quest for specific information with a dismissive generic statement:

‘Women have equal opportunity for involvement in all aspects of society within the Biosphere Reserve and the Australian community.’

Maybe things are different in Victoria, I would love to see some evidence to that regard. None was given.

Noosa Biosphere and women participation

So how did NBRF answer for Noosa? Here we go….

2.4.4 Women’s participation (community organisations/decision-making processes)
‘Within Noosa community organisations there is equal opportunity for women to participate or be part of management committees. The nature of the community organisation can often determine the gender balance. For example the Noosa Community Roundtable, with an interest in social issues is largely female dominated but other associations may be male dominated due to the nature of their special interest.

There are no specific gender diversity initiatives as all groups are accommodating of all genders.’

I paraphrase this response as: ‘The reason for limited participation, if there was any, is due to women’s nature – social, caring, nurturing, while men do all sorts of ‘special interest stuff’. But we are not sure and it’s not important enough to look any further into it and actually provide data or do anything about it.’

Women and the Biosphere

It does seem that the Noosa Parks Association (NPA) stalwarts – who effectively took over the Biosphere when the newly de-amalgamated Council was established – have left a trail of alienated and negatively impacted women in their wake.

We won’t forget the good work of women such as Dr Sue Davis, former Noosa Biosphere Ltd chair, and the attempts to discredit and humiliate her as the NBL was summarily dispensed with to allow the NBRF to take its place. Or award winning architect Lindy Aitkins, former deputy chair and her partnership development and international relationship work; similarly Mary Jane-Wield and her contributions to the climate action plan; Henrietta for social accountability, housing affordability; and Annie Guthrie and her hard work for NCBA until she finally resigned due to the appalling treatment she received. And there is my own story of being bullied by NPA honorary member, former NBRF director and former mayor Noel Playford and having been a target of vile sexualised intimidation, which is well documented elsewhere in Open Noosa. And there are many more, Dr Leah Barclay, international sound artist, Helen, Henrietta, Stephanie, Debbie, Anne, Kate, Sharon…

What’s the verdict?

The NBRF’s self-evaluation on women’s participation (and treatment) is insincere and harks back to a time when the role of women was to be nurturers not managers. NBRF has established for itself a bad track record in inclusion and supporting the rights of women. The 10 year periodic review would have been a good opportunity to show insight, honesty and, yes, courage in addressing the truth of the matter. And it would have benefited from a forthright commitment accompanied by a strategy demonstrating a willingness to change.

There was none of this truth. And there can only be one verdict. The Noosa Biosphere has failed women just as it failed the community at large. A failure of inclusion and a failure of understanding.

It is inconceivable that the people of Noosa will tolerate another 10 years of this. It is inconceivable that UNESCO will accept the NBRF’s gloss as a genuine determination to create the kind of Biosphere it has defined as advancing humankind.

We do not need public relations creations, we need authentic relationships between people, their environment and their economic well-being.

And we need women as equal partners in this process.