Many would disagree with me that climate change is non-discriminatory. The shocks and stresses induced by climate change are felt in coastal belts of Bangladesh as well as Colorado, Maldives and Manhattan to name a few. However, the impacts on the communities vary with the marginalised and disadvantaged bearing the greater brunt of the impact. Not to mention the availability of resources and alternatives being greater than in countries like Bangladesh or other parts of the global south.
This is why one is of the view that it calls for a renewed discussion and deliberations to put equity and justice back on the centre stage with a rigour. It needs a shift from figures and quantitative economic arguments to rights-based thinking and approach, backed by serious political commitment.
The disparity that we find emerged and sharpened due to existing replication of the proposed and accepted model(s) of development which are heavily dependent on fossil fuel. Developing countries opting for fossil fuel dependent growth, ie using coal for energy, drilling for oil and in addition all the hydrological mega infrastructure projects at the behest of global financial institutions and business lobbies have not been the solution to climate change.
Instead they disrupted the life and rights of rivers, oceans, destroyed soil, affected agriculture, biodiversity and human lives. The way out of the economic crisis was supposedly to extract the oil and coal out of the earth without reference to the serious environmental cost and undertake growth in lines of the developed countries.
The land has been taken away from indigenous communities, existing agricultural practices and norms ignored, deforestation has been on the rise and oceans and rivers interfered with harming biodiversity.
On the human level, the impacts of climate change analysed and explained from existing lenses and arguments are not gender sensitive given the dominant patriarchal discourse and world view. Climate change discourse and negotiations till date have only delivered unsatisfactory results when it comes to the issue of gender and equity.
Gender-related inequalities are pervasive in the developing world. A substantial majority of the 1.3 billion people in the developing world, living below the threshold of poverty are women. In Bangladesh alone, where it is estimated that 30% of the population are living below the poverty line, making up for some 30 million people, half are women.
Climate change poses new challenges to already-vulnerable populations. It is important that the consequences of climate change should not lead already-marginalised sections of communities into further deprivation. However, key development issues that may help address these concerns have been at best sidetracked, and at worst blatantly omitted, from policy debates on climate change.
The threats posed by global warming appear to have failed to impress on policy-makers the importance of placing women at the heart of their vision of sustainable development and equitable and fair share of opportunities for growth. I would like to argue that if climate change policy is about ensuring a sustainable future by combining development and environment issues, it must take into account the interests of all stakeholders, especially women. It must also ensure that all women are not categorised as one, instead recognised for their diversity as well.
Development practitioners and activists recognise that it is essential to develop an understanding of how men and women are differently vulnerable to, and able to cope with, the impacts of climate change.
By addressing the inequality between men and women’s access to resources, our work in fisheries, forestry and agriculture can contribute to better adaptation practices, more sustainable livelihood. and coping strategies for all involved.
All socioeconomic systems (especially climate-dependent systems such as agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, water resources, and human health) are in a state of flux in reaction to changing climatic conditions. The evidence shows that there is considerable potential for adaptation to reduce the impacts of climate change and to realise new opportunities.
The global South is more vulnerable to climate change, which impacts especially harshly the poor women and children in these countries. Countries in the North have to agree to major emission cuts along with some of the countries in the South who have adopted energy-heavy development models and joined the global league of polluters in this race.
Denial has come with such a cost that even if we stopped using energy totally for a while we could not restore the earth to the agreed target of CO2 emission. There has been total violation of the rights of the oceans, rivers, all other species in the world by promoting the fossil-fuel-dependent development model. Such disregard for biodiversity and land rights and rights of water has sharpened the existing imbalances in society.
It is observed that social institutions and arrangements governing the allocation of power and access to resources within a nation, region, or community need to work in a manner to assure that access to resources is equitably distributed because the presence of power differentials can contribute to reduced adaptive capacity.
It is important for climate negotiators to be cognizant of and integrate this knowledge into climate change negotiations and policy. This will contribute to efforts to make policy decisions more effective and able to reach the goal of helping the poor to adapt. Rural men and women’s ability to protect themselves from climatic changes threatening their food security at household and community levels depends on the resources they have.
Frequent and intense floods, cyclone, rise of salinity in water, river erosion, drought bring in a set of challenges difficult to cope with in any situation. In the coastal belts of Bangladesh and India, or Maldives, many have been rendered homeless, have lost existing livelihood options and professions, having to migrate, living in the open with no prospects for tomorrow.
In women-headed households, the impact is considered to be higher. Women have to struggle to provide food and water, ensure that the resources are protected which is why their role in homestead gardening, social forestry, seed conservation, and indigenous knowledge crop up in any conversation that is related and their wisdom needs to be adhered to.
That women and marginalised communities are the most affected by climate change can no longer be open for debate. Yet, we have observed reservations in how it is reflected in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiation documents and processes. This is also noticeable in the bodies and instruments that have evolved as an outcome of these processes.
Do the negotiations so far truly reflect the predicaments of the disadvantaged, poor and marginalised women? Or for that matter of marginalised communities at large? Should we be concluding that the climate and gender dimension debates are an “add on” in global negotiations as well as at the national level?
The question I am trying to raise is that while many of us may agree on the urgency of taking action to address climate change and reduce emissions, have we understood that it needs to be grounded in the principles of equity? Are we going to hide behind the argument of creating opportunities for the poor and marginalised by accepting the development paradigm and growth models proposed by the major emitters?
Or will we invest in developing alternative development models that respect nature and listen to tried and tested common sense principles we have available to us through our indigenous and traditional practices? This is not to be read as replacing fossil fuel with bio-fuel and threatening food security of communities!
To the best of my understanding so far equity discussions and debates have mainly tried to address emissions. It now needs to account for a human rights perspective of climate change. The politics of power driven by major energy corporations and their demands have overshadowed the discussions around equity and equitable processes even before it gained sufficient ground in negotiations. These accounts need to be meaningfully added to the negotiations globally and nationally.
National policies must facilitate the process of equitable development opportunities. At ground level, increasing broad-based economic development by promoting female education, employment and economic and political empowerment is one of the ways to progress. It is most likely to prove as one of the most promising strategies for climate change adaptation, with women as key agents.
However, we find that the ODA and development policies are very convoluted given the state of international relations and corporate lobbies. One cringes at the dependency on such bodies knowing that the interests of the poor and marginalised are not being prioritised.
A broad-based development approach requires gender-sensitive growth strategies that invest in women and empower them to more effectively contribute to economic development. All regions will need to recognise that women need to be supported in their dual roles as care-givers and active economic agents.
This will involve lightening their care burden through access to improved household technologies, extended public social protection systems, and strategies that increase women’s bargaining power. The success of a post-MDG development framework depends on formulating policies and translating existing policy promises into actions that reflect a view of the world that embraces gender equality and women’s empowerment.
Other issues such as migration and its impact have to be central to thinking on any policy or programmatic intervention we may propose. There is need for ensuring gender analysis and women’s participation in policy formulation and decision-making without further loss of time. This is applicable to adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage discussions/negotiations.
The Global Environment Facility and the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol can play a role in ensuring sustainable development provided they are implemented in a way that does not disadvantage women and the poor.
Would it be too much to expect COP 19 in Warsaw, and the multiple initiatives and processes around post-2015 and SDGs to pave the way for equity and justice? Will global leaders be able to demonstrate transformative leadership and challenge the existing “mono culture of the mind,” to borrow from Dr Vandana Shiva, and attempt to comprehensively save and protect the environment and humanity by looking at this as also an issue of equity and justice?