In the aftermath of Rio+20, Ipsita Kumar reflects on the need to address the continued gap between the social and the environmental.
***
In 1988, the World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, released the report, Our Common Future. This report was the starting point of all things related to sustainable development. Four years later, in 1992, the Earth Summit took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where Agenda 21 was released to make a stronger stand on sustainable development. The two summits set the scene for later agreements such as the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. However, women’s empowerment, although mentioned, has not been really taken forward.
Women, as the food, fuel and water collectors for most households in developing countries, especially in rural areas, suffer more in terms of poverty, as well as unequal access to natural resources. To illustrate this point, women, who are the major crop producers, producing around 60–80% of the food in most developing countries, hold a very small proportion of land. Less than 20% of landholders are women. However, if women in rural areas had the same access as men do to land, technology, financial services, education and markets, agricultural production could be increased and the number of hungry people reduced by 100-150 million. These figures make an emphatic case for women’s equal (or at least improved) land rights in achieving the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environmental and social).
The roles of civil society and knowledge-based institutions (KBIs) are crucial in bridging this gap and in achieving a sustainable future. Some of the roles include: (i) gathering important information and making it available not just to the government, but also to its citizens, especially women, (ii) implementing programmes and policies, (iii) serving as a “watchdog” to ensure transparency.
Their importance in achieving sustainable development has also been highlighted in the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) – Rio+20 - outcome document, The Future We Want.
Panelists at the UN Women Leaders Forum ahead of the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. From left: Penny Williams, Global Ambassador for Women and Girls for Australia; Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations; Maria das Graças Silva Foster, Chief Executive Officer Petrobras; Achim Steiner, Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); Yassine Fall, Chief of the Economic Empowerment Section at UNWomen. Photo: UNWomen.
The Future We Want outcome document highlights the important role of civil society and KBIs, which moves us forward in many critical ways. However, it is also heavily criticized in terms of its treatment of the broader and strategic needs of one of the nine ‘nine major groups’, i.e. women. Though the 1992 commitments to expand social inclusion have been reinforced, Rio+20 failed to advance on key politically contested areas. One of the principal elements not accounted for in the document is women’s reproductive rights, an area which the MDG framework has proven is critical and fundamental to sustained human development, choice and opportunity for all. This was also termed “reproductive justice” in a recent article by Rebecca Lefton. Representatives of the Women’s Major Group perceive this as a “roll-back” and “believe that the governments of the world have failed both women and future generations.” This “seemingly” indirect link between reproductive health rights and sustainable development underscores the urgency in moving beyond GDP and other purely quantitative measures once and for all. After all, well-being is key to growth and development, as well as sustainability.
When we miss the links between pollution and health and the implications for productivity, we hinder and limit the people power of and for sustainability. The Women’s Major Group also noted the lack of “reference to radioactive pollution and its devastating impact on our health and our environment, including rivers, aquifers, food and air” in the outcome document. Such missing links are often more costly to women who, due to their socially prescribed roles are at the centre of food security, energy security and water security at the household levels. It is often by their efforts alone, with their attendant risks, that households have any access at all to these resources.
Beyond the issues of disadvantage and deprivation, women and their empowerment bring a number of positives to the complexity of balancing the economic, social and environmental. Unfortunately, this role is recognized in a largely ad hoc manner across a number of international agreements. Civil society has had a fundamental role in drawing attention to these inconsistencies and tensions. Highlighting the benefits and costs and keeping attention focused on several justice and equity concerns has been crucial. They have also been pivotal in ensuring that women’s voices are heard, as well as training them to adapt to a changing environment. Knowledge-based institutions and networks complement this work by delivering the evidence to back the advocacy, by highlighting “how” and not just “what”, by showcasing examples which are adaptable and by influencing policies and governments in different ways. More than ever, the two groups now must work hand-in-hand to address this continued gap between the social and the environmental (and between women’s empowerment and the management of natural resources).
Thus, more is needed and will be demanded from civil society and KBIs to deliver across global, national and local frontiers of development where people’s lives are often determined by the efficacy or inefficacy of policy and, more so, how it is applied. If half of the world is not involved, can it even be defined as sustainable or as development?
● Ipsita Kumar is a Research Associate in the Resources, Regulation and Global Security Division at The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India.
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to Magazine
Al Jazeera’s Alternative voices from Rio+20
As part of the Rio+20, UN Women conducted a women leaders’ high level summit where female heads of state from Denmark, Norway, Brazil and others pledged their commitment towards enhancing cooperation between governments and NGOs and advocating for gender equality. While the meeting was inspirational, given the achievements of this handful of leaders, it hardly filters down to the millions of other women across the world who feature most heavily in every indicator of developmental divisions, from education to basic health and human rights.
After an emotionally charged speech at the People’s Summit, Emily Tjale from South Africa, representing the Rural Women’s Assembly, sat down to explain her frustrations as an activist.
Tjale has been following the negotiations since “Agenda 21″ the declaration that spelled out the necessary measures for national and international action “in every area with human impact on the environment”, at the 1992 Earth Summit. This commitment was re-affirmed by member states in 2002, but the repeated promises have not materialised into action, she said.
“We, women, need space. We need to be made part of the decision making process, as we are the ones most affected. We need to connect climate change with our issues that affects our livelihood. We need to reconnect the eco-system in order to rehabilitate it,” Tjale explained.
The only concrete new decisions taken at Rio 20 are to establish two new intergovernmental processes, one on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and another on Financial Mechanisms. A committee of 33 experts will be created for the SDG process. Women call for a seat for a representative of civil society’s women’s organizations on the expert panel for the SDGs. In addition, we call on the Secretary General to ensure gender balance in the composition of the panel.
Finally, Rio 20 has not established stronger governance for sustainable development, and we regret in particular the deletion of the proposed high commissioner for future generations.
At Rio 20, governments had a historic chance to take bold steps to end poverty and environmental destruction, to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our societies, to take concrete measures to fully implement women’s rights and women’s leadership. We now risk increased poverty, inequities and irreversible environmental damage. This is not the future we want, nor the future we need.