1
Linnéuniversitetet
Peace and Development Work Master Programme
4FU402 Development Theory
Professor: Heiko Fritz
8 November 2013
Gender, environment and sustainable development
Marco De Cave
2
Conceptual framework
The relationship between gender and development has often been relegated to a pure technical
approach and much of the research and indicators used have widely ignored sex-disaggregated
figures analysis, assuming homogeneity between men and women (UN 2002). Only recently gender
equality, for instance, has become part of the official action of the World Bank and it can be
immediately seen simply counting the word ‘gender’ in the World Development Reports.
As it can be observed from the processing done, in the last four years gender-related words
have been slowly adopted by mainstream financial institutions, symbol of a new awareness on the
complex issues of development. For example, in 2001 World Bank framed a gender-oriented
strategy, but only recently it has propelled a Gender Action Plan (GAP), trying to support women in
sectors difficult to mainstream (World Bank, 2013).
Table 1. Gender and the World Bank
Expression used WDR 2010 WDR 2011 WDR 2012 WDR 2013
gender 15 58 2047 108
gender equality 0 3 359 8
gender inequality 0 0 88 40 Source: WB, 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013. Author’s calculation.
When it comes to analysing the complex relation between gender and development, it is
however important to specify choices of analysis – gender is per se a cross-cutting topic, as well as
development that in the ordinary usage is considered to be a movement towards a more desirable
stage (Parpart et al., 2000).
Among the implications of development it is possible to recall different aspects, namely:
economic, socio-political, sustainable and human. The focus of the present work limits its analysis
on the environmental issues of sustainable development and how gender is determinant in its
results. Although a potential causal relationship between gender and environment is still neglected
in cross-country research, there is a growing number of studies and theories supporting such
relation (Nugent and Shandra, 2005).
The United Nations 1987 Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as
“development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs”. Two concepts are here implied. First, the word ‘need’ is mainly
perceived to be connected with poor people, to which priority ought to be given. In fact, sustainable
development is aimed at guaranteeing equity and dignity for all while preserving the natural stock
of resources (Todaro and Smith, 2011).
The second implication of the definition is the presence of boundaries, either in social,
economic or environmental level connected to the actual state of technology and the organisation of
a particular society. Sustainability, therefore, connects the natural capacity of environment to cope
with more demanding challenges in human societies, implying an ethical response to the economic
development. It is clear, hence, the presence of two development dimensions – one horizontal,
expressing solidarity today, and one vertical, addressing cooperation in the future (Johnson-Latham,
2007).
Sustainability per se entails the concept of equilibrium between consumption and the actual
capability of the system to reproduce itself, therefore recalling resilience. The concept herein used
may allude to a combination of a human society to develop (ameliorating its economic and material
3
status through distribution and equalisation of resources access) and at the same time to pursue a
balance in its environmental footprint.
Adopting the concept of sustainable development, it is possible to identify three sub-themes
related to it, namely: environmental sustainability, economic and socio-political sustainability. It
has been a widely contested approach as classical models of economic growth ignored the relations
between human society and environment, presenting the former as activities being realised in a
context of infinite resources and absence of natural disasters. Indeed, separation of environment,
society and economy has much led to a techno-economic scientific approach that is now extensively
rejected by all the major financial institutions and developmental organisations. Being more precise,
the sustainable development globally envisioned links sustainable development with gender
dimensions, identifying gender inequality as one of the key problems of development and its
resolution as the “catalyst for reaching all other goals and objective” (United Nations Development
Programme, 2013).
Therefore, a thorough analysis of development cannot simply separate gender relations from
its main goal, in other words fulfilling the necessity of equal access to resources, political
empowerment, economic income improvement and sustainable consumption.
The aim of this report is to narrow the scope of this vast debate to focus analysing how
reducing the gender-gap may actually contribute to a more sustainable development in environment
management. In particular, the present analysis limits its scope on a few topics, namely: gender-gap
in rural contexts, the relationship between women and desertification and, eventually, gender-gap
and governance.
Consequently, a concept to examine is the expression ‘reducing the gender-gap’. As the
present work relates itself to a sustainable concept of development, the approach used refers to the
capability of individuals of achieving precise goals. Therefore, the idea of reducing gender-gap is
relevant to development itself as it unleashes unutilised resources – in other words empowering
women is not just about power, but also involves changes in access to resources and entitlement,
enhancing the quantity and quality of human resources (Kishor and Subaiya, 2008).
Gender, as here conceived, is a social construction depending on different factors in a country.
Gender, in fact, does not only involve environmental relations or empirical differences in natural
resource management, but it comprehends also underlying social relations (Westermann, et al.
2005). Therefore, in accordance with the aim of the present work, the concept of women may be
referred to the feminine part of poor people in the world, in order to bear in mind a precise
characterisation of the group (not homogeneous culturally) from a material point of view. However,
the aim is not to treat women as an undifferentiated and separate group from men, instead
presenting a holistic approach on gender issues of development, analysing how reducing gender-gap
may be validly correlated to sustainable development. The focus on women must be presented in
relation with men.
Given such conditions and perspectives, this report is divided into three parts. The first deals
with a historical reconstruction of the nexus between gender and environment within the sustainable
development debate, analysing the different stages of global discussion. Second part refers to
different kinds of intervention aiming at reducing gender-gap and if there is an evidence of
women’s influence in environmental aspects of development. In order to do this, the focus of this
work is directed to analyse how reducing gender-gap in the agricultural field, in resource
4
management and in decision-making related to environment could be determinant for sustainable
development sectors.
The third part tries to summarise the findings, also providing suggestions and possible patterns
to follow.
Historical and analysis framework
Having defined development’s main goal as fulfilling the necessities of indigent people while
ensuring a sustainable consumption path, it is necessary to remember that the majority of the poor
in the world are women. As UNIFEM (2012) claims, estimates define that 70% of the poorest
people in the world are women, therefore leading to the concept of feminisation of poverty –
women face more discriminations in financial and labour markets, both in the formal and in the
informal sectors (Moghadan, 2005). Such disparities are still not well addressed by national and
international institutions, failing therefore in investing in human capital for a sustainable
development.
To understand such a situation, it is necessary to insert this work in a historical pattern,
mentioning a few key points in order to bring attention to the present situation. Even though there
was a wide debate on the role of women during the 1970s and 80s in the so-called ‘Decade for
Women’ (Momsen, 2006), there has been little acknowledgment on the role of women in climate
change and environmental issues of development. The first step in the recognition of women’s
impact on environment is the Marrakech process work (Johnson-Latham 2007), starting from the
Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) of 1992 in which is
explicitly mentioned that (from the art.24.1 of the final draft)
“Effective implementation of these programmes will depend on the active involvement of women in economic and
political decision-making and will be critical to the successful implementation of Agenda 21”.
Agenda 21, the document released by the UNCED 1992, clearly indicates women as catalysts
of environmental activism, being able to block soil and water degradation. Continuation of such
broad framework is the MDGs document of 2000 in which, however, some critical comments must
be put forward. Gender-related themes were confined under Goals 3 and 5, while Goal 7 and 8 were
mostly gender-blind (UNDP 2005). Such situation contributes to understand the significant gap in
comprehending how environmental policies and gender equity are intertwined. In fact, in spite of
women’s engagement in management of natural stock, only recently there has been an official and
slow recognition of gender equality as a cross-cutting theme (International Institute for Sustainable
Development, 2004).
The new framework provided by the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) assumes a much
broader view on gender, legitimating a synergy between women and environment. However,
Momsen (2006) asserts that the relation between gender and environment must not be narrowed to a
simple description of women’s role in environment, ghettoising women as a separate social group –
it rather must be seen in relation with the community life, education and political empowerment.
Thus, any discussion involving an analysis relating women to environment should entail two
order of factors. The first order of factors is related to women’s practical needs, for instance access
to resources and services, like food, water, land, education and health-care (Moser, 1993). A second
5
order of factors is more strategic and it draws attention to the inclusion of women in participatory
democracy and decision-making processes (ibid.).
Approach
Giving a broader view on the present analysis, gender dimensions in sustainable development
may be referred to the actual allocation of resources and how such resources may be allocated in
the future (Warth and Koparanova, 2012). In fact, “intra-generational equity cannot be achieved
without addressing the gender relations which underlie prevailing inequity. Nor can inter-
generational equity be obtained […] if inequalities continue to be perpetuated” (ibid.). Disparities in
gender link themselves to widen opportunity inequalities, being “the deepest and most pervasive of
inequalities” (UNDP, 2005).
Hence, the analysis focuses on intra-generational justice - how actual resources are distributed
between men and women in environment-related activities – and on inter-generational one, focusing
on how narrowing gender-gap contributes to prevent from soil degradation, desertification, water
consumption and unsustainable resource usage. Certainly, such concepts cannot be divided, but they
are deeply intertwined, being impossible to distinguish them from a factual point of view.
The first part will focus on two themes, agriculture and desertification from a gender-
perspective. The second part will constitute a focus on gender-gap in policy-making related to
environmental issues.
Analysis
When concerning the material life of women and their correlation to environmental issues, it
is important to recall a renewed interest in considering again agriculture as an engine of
development, above all for its impact on soil degradation and environmental management (Alkire,
et al. 2013). In fact, it is possible to say that the impact of pollution, desertification and land erosion
is generally heavier for women (International Fund for Agriculturall Development, 2005; Warth and
Koparanova, 2012), therefore revealing the fact that the relation between women and environment
“cannot be understood outside the context of gender relations in resource management and use”
(Jackson 1993).
It is frequently stated that women are hit more heavily by climatic and environmental
disasters because they are ‘naturally’ closer to the environment; however it is possible to claim that
this is only a socially constructed role (ibid.). Such severity may be explained through the
overrepresentation of women among the poor (Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2011b) and
because of the division of labour among households (for instance, women have to collect wood or
water, resources that are seriously menaced by desertification). Thus, there is a correlation between
women’s empowerment, damaged environmental conditions and rehabilitation of natural settings
(United Nations Research Institute For Social Development, 1994).
When it comes to natural resources management and environmental protection, a number of
examples, not exhaustive, are presented in different fields in order to discuss how intra- and inter-
generational justice concepts are correlated and how gender is a key pattern in sustainable
development.
6
Gender and agriculture
Analysing the impact of an empowered position of women in agriculture means to ensure,
first, the possibility of achieving food security and, at the same time, creating the conditions for a
broader access to rural capital, better and equal material conditions and a healthier life. From both
intra- and inter-generational points of view, certainly the empowerment of women itself is not the
only condition to ensure a sustainable development (UNDP, 2011), as another fundamental
condition is the absence of violence, both social and domestic (Warth and Koparanova, 2012) –
again intra- and inter-generational gender-gap is present as a current cross-cutting topic.
As IFAD (2005) affirms, women in general do not possess control over productive resources
such as agricultural inputs, land and financial resources, adding the fact that their work is often
considered less valuable than men. Therefore, reducing the gender-gap on the usage of above
mentioned factors can determine a serious impact on environmental outcomes of development.
Human Development Report 2011 (p.8) states that a broader equity actually leads to a better land
use, water access, and fewer deaths due to air pollution and dirty water.
Narrowing the gender-gap would also lead to a more effective use of resources for a
sustainable and equitable development (Todaro and Smith, 2011) as women constitute almost the
50% of the agricultural work force with correspondence to sub-Saharan Africa, the 40% in Southern
Africa, overly 50% in Eastern Africa and 45% in Northern Africa – of course wide differences are
conceived in these clusters (FAO, 2011b). Recognising the work of women, however, has been
always gender biased as there has been an historical emphasis on analysing paid work rather than
considering the domestic (and hidden) contribution of women fundamental for rationalising
incomes, fostering social solidarity and protecting the land (FAO, 1994).
Labour division, in fact, still constitutes an encumbrance when referring to gender-gap in rural
activities. A more equal distribution of work would lead to more time spent on education and
health-care, therefore fostering a more equitable development (FAO, 2011a). Women, due to time
constraint, suffer of a limitation of possible actions to be undertaken (ibid.), involving both intra-
generational issues (provision of roads, electricity, potable water and underperformance in
agriculture management) as well as inter-generational issues (childcare, decision-making and
community-family planning).
Particularly crucial to women participating in increasing agricultural capacity and impact on
food variety can be the burden due to lack of access to credit and investment, when rules clearly
privilege men (FAO, 2011b). For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa women were empowered through
easier rural financing with relation to shea butter production. The cooperatives involved in such
rural activity, only women-led, enjoyed an amelioration of economic conditions determining an
expansion of education, health-care and voting participation (Shea Project, 2008).
The restriction on potentialities of women on the sustainable debate of development may also
be due to land access, in particular to significant dissimilarities between the legal and social
recognition of land rights. In fact, a few women can actually possess properties and they do not
have control over production decisions. The chronic underperformance of women in production is
therefore gender-biased and not due to ‘natural’ choices followed by women (FAO, 2011b). In
Ethiopia, for instance, it was prohibited for women to possess land on their own, with the only
exception of inheriting it. Programmes aimed at reforming such system through a certificate land-
venue framework have effectively led to improved governance, lower transaction costs of land
7
trading and a reduced conflict potential (Bezahib and Holden, 2010). In particular, they had as
target women, improving their ownership in land management and guaranteeing equal social
opportunities between women and men.
Therefore, tackling the social context and the legal framework on gender basis can lead to an
improvement in sustainability of development.
Gender and desertification
One of the most discussed environmental issues of unsustainable development is related to
desertification, not only due to a profound mismanagement of lands, but also due to increasing
human population, poverty, political instability, deforestation and climate change. Such process is
entrenched with gender issues and probably is one of the most threatening environmental aspects
having a profoundly different impact with regards to gender (IFAD, 2006).
Women’s roles and knowledge are heavily affected by land erosion and impoverishment due
to gender-gaps in labour and in decision-making in environment preservation (ibid.). In fact, women
and men do not equally participate in management of natural resources and this has led to a handful
of gender-focused studies. In particular, it is worth mentioning the work of Westermann et al.
(2005) whose aim of analysis has been to study 33 rural programmes empowering women in 20
different countries in natural resource management. Such extensive research has shown how in
women’s group self-sustaining practices were significantly greater than with men (ibid.). The
studied programmes involved agroforestry, coastal protection, management of waters, sustainable
irrigation and soil management (ibid.) and the comparative study showed how women’s concern on
environment is related to a higher consideration of altruism and conflict resolution (ibid.). Reducing
the gender-gap, therefore, pursues more fruitful consequences in development as sustainability is
above all the result of men and women.
In line with these findings, IFAD (2006) discovers that investing in women living in dry-land
areas results in poverty reduction and in better levels of credit and natural resource management.
For instance, in China and Sudan women were involved in restoring soil natural reproduction
capability through programmes tackling low literacy, gender discrimination and lack of
participation both in rural credit and political issues (ibid.).
Such evidence has been presented as well by Johnsson-Latham (2007): taking for granted that
income levels and social conditions can influence women’s decisions, women are more inclined to
sustainable choices due to their concern about family’s wealth.
Probably desertification is the topic in which intra- and inter-generational sustainability
concepts are most profoundly connected, fostering a reflection on the gender-gap. As UNDP 2011
report states, there is a direct causality between gender inequality index and deforestation index
(p.75) between the years 1990-2010. Such relation could be justified considering the fact that
environment conservation is more likely to happen when women are involved in community
decision-making, confirming again sustainable development dimensions of the present and of the
future (UNDP, 2011).
As UNDP Powerful Synergies 2013 Report reinforces, climate change and natural disasters
are described to be gender-specific as “they kill more women than men and tend to kill women at a
younger age, particularly where their socio-economic status is particularly low”. Whereas it
8
recognises that in the forestry conservation, empowering women leads statistically to better results
than men (ibid.).
Gender and governance for sustainable development
Further inquiries, then, should be made about the connection between women and
environmental governance having a closer look at the data of the Human Development Report
2011, as presented in table 2. As it is possible to observe, the differences of attitudes should suggest
that gender does not matter, however it is possible to state that verified conditions of decision-
making and equality in access are determinant in evidencing the difference between genders
(UNDP, 2011). In fact, often, women are not educated to be fully capable of acting and being aware
of the environmental risks. Women are more likely to engage than men, as UNDP (2011) says, as
long as there are favourable conditions for women at different layers of the society. Therefore,
attitudes may be interpreted within a precise socio-political framework, as the following table shall
suggest.
Table 2. Attitudes towards the environment, by gender, low and very high HDI countries, 2010 (percent).
Low HDI countries
Very high HDI countries
Attitude Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Difference
(%)
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Difference
(%)
Climate change is a serious
threat
47,76 46,05 1,71 27,18 31,46 4,29
Dissatisfied with
Air quality 22,81 21,27 1,55 17,95 21,36 3,41
Water quality 50,48 47,32 3,16 13,56 16,28 2,72
Government environmental
policy
54,82 52,12 2,70 46,36 48,38 2,02
Government emissions
policy
61,46 49,16 12,30 53,13 60,83 7,70
Source: UNDP, 2011.
With regards to reducing the gender-gap in policy-making and its impact on environmental
issues of development, there is still lack of empirical analyses (Norgaard and York, 2005). Overall,
it is possible to detect three levels of engendering policies: i) a global level, characterised by
lobbying on sustainable development; ii) a national level, characterised by participation of women
in institutions and iii) a local level constituted by women’s groups trying to close the gender-gap
working on traditional and cultural factors.
About such levels, research suggests that countries with higher female representation in the
Parliament are more likely to ratify international treaties on environment (Norgaard and York
2005). Such a statement is also supported by UNDP (2011), but the reason why women should be
more supportive toward environmental issues is not clear and the major interpretations still lye on
the socialisation of women (Norgaard and York, 2005). Another issue mentioned by Nugend and
Shandra (2009) is that treaty ratification does not mean necessarily implementation of
environmental policy in development. That means, therefore, that additional research through a
multilevel approach is needed, taking into account incomes, education and political empowerment
relating them to sex-disaggregated data.
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Co
ntr
ace
pti
ve u
se w
om
en
15
-49
(%
)
Gender Inequality Index 2011
Besides the institutional inclusion of women and its effect on environmental issues of
development, it is important to recall also the grassroots level and its implication in intra- and inter-
generational issues of sustainable development. Equal participation in decision-making must be
pursued both for women and men, in order to encourage co-responsibility for a present and a future
dimension of development (Warth and Koparanova, 2012). In fact, a reduced gender-gap would
affect positively, for example, how families in rural areas would allocate their budget in food,
health, education and clothing (FAO, 2011b).
This is precisely described by the GII (Gender Inequality Index) that includes itself also
women’s participation in decision-making, showing how it does have consequences for
sustainability and equality. For instance, a more extended women’s participation would raise the
general level of environmental sustainability – such issue is a key challenge also in democracies
because weak social strata are the ones likely to be more affected by environmental degradation as
policies do not necessarily reflect their necessities (UNDP, 2011).
Another interesting and controversial topic in decision-making is family planning of
households – women have been usually neglected a role in that, usually following the men’s
pattern. For instance, UNDP (2011) relates the gender-gap to environmental degradation and the
use of contraceptives (as mutually agreed between partners). In other words, it states that a less
rampant population growth could favour a lower emission of greenhouse gas and less soil-
degradation, therefore underlying the role of women as fundamental decision-makers in rural areas.
Indubitably other conditions must be taken into consideration as cultural and religious factors that
could partly explain some country profiles, but in general a weaker woman position with respect to
men leads to absence of decision-making (including in this expression also family planning).
Figure 1. Relation between GII and contraceptive use of women 15-49 (%).
Source: UNDP, 2011. Elaboration of the author.
For this reason, such analysis should be framed in a broader and more critical context. The
simple version of this argument connects the fact that poverty and land impoverishment are
intertwined for two orders of reason. Firstly, the poor (mainly women) are affected by degradation
because their income depend upon productivity of the soil; secondly, high rates of degradation
(usually due to deforestation or land overexploitation) would seem to be supported by demographic
10
pressure (reminding a Malthusian approach) – that means low levels of women’s empowerment.
Conversely, the complexity between women’s empowerment, environmental sustainability and
demographic pressure leads to state that solely reducing the gender-gap may be not a sufficient
condition in guaranteeing a sustainable development unless societal aspects as a whole are
considered. This was demonstrated through a comparative research in Uganda, Pakistan and Costa
Rica by the UNRISD in 1994 that had shown how resource pressure was not due to demographic
pressure, but rather to a mix of socio-economic, eco-political and demographic processes.
Gender, poverty and sustainable development: building the link
As it has been presented in this brief work, the poor are the main victims of environmental
degradation, being constrained in a vicious circle as poverty is influenced by a disrupted
environment and at the same time the poor determine environmental deprivation (Todaro and
Smith, 2011). Certainly all the poor are not the same (bearing in mind also the capability approach),
above all when women are considered to be the majority of them, adding the fact that they face
more difficult legal, socio-cultural, economic and political conditions with respect to men. For this
reason, many land reforms if not gender-aware fail to redistribute wealth, worsening even women’s
conditions (Todaro and Smith, 2011; UNDP, 2013). What is more, socio-cultural barriers remain
tough with reference to agricultural programmes empowering the role of women and their role on
environment outcomes remains uncertain as they are gender biased.
In general, women still lack access to good quality land, to the possibility of inheriting
properties, facing persistent discrimination that hinders civic and political representation, a crucial
condition to achieve sustainable development. In fact, gender-related issues in environmental
procedures and in existing environmental policies suffer deficiency of execution, failing to reflect
the connection between different MDGs and SDGs. Current problems cannot be simply achieved
through legal enforcement without practical action, as well the exclusion of legal rules taking into
account gender issues in environment makes hard, if not impossible, to fill the gender-gap (UNDP,
2013).
Thus, gender equity is not only a matter of respecting human rights, but also an instrument to
foster intra- and inter-generational justice, combining different factors of analysis, involving men
and women equally – not only women as a narrow approach would suggest. Gender inequality
shall, in fact, be intimately considered connected to poverty (intending it not only an economic fact)
as aforementioned the majority of the poor are women. The following graph associates the values of
MPI with the GII in the developing countries, showing the empirical correlation between poverty
and women disempowerment.
11
0,000
0,100
0,200
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
0,800
0,000 0,100 0,200 0,300 0,400 0,500 0,600 0,700
Ge
nd
er
Ine
qu
alit
y In
de
x 2
01
2
Multidimensional Poverty Index 2012
Figure 2. Correlation MPI and GII, 2012.
Source: elaboration of the author from UN database (www.data.un.org).
Such correlation of the data leads us to affirm the complexity of the relation between gender-
gap and poverty, far from considering them resolvable through a mere economic approach. What is
more, the graphic captures the intra-generational dimension of gender inequality and at the same
time the inter-generational one. In fact, poor people are considered to conduct environmentally non-
sustainable activities as they do not have choice in their everyday life – women, for instance, have
the most burdensome activities, like collecting firewood and fuel for domestic heating. Further
evidence of the importance of considering the gender-gap as a key of development and a factor
linked to different others may be reflected from the observation of the following maps.
12
Figure 3. Gender Inequality Index (GII) in the World
in 2011.
Figure 4. Adolescent Fertility Rate (per 1000 women
aged 15-19 years). 2000-2010.
Source: UNDP, 2011; (brighter colours indicate more
inequality).
Source: WHO, 2010; (darker colours indicate higher
fertility).
Figure 5. Rural population using solid fuel (%), 2010.
Figure 6. MPI in the world, 2011.
Source: WHO, 2010; (darker colours indicate more
usage of solid fuel)
Source: OPHI, 2011; (darker colours indicate more
poverty in the society).
Looking at figure 3, it is possible to observe how the macro-region with the greatest GII is
located in sub-Saharan Africa and how it corresponds at the same time with the region with the
highest adolescent fertility rate, as shown in figure 4. As it has been demonstrated in figure 1 the
correlation of GII and the usage of contraceptives – meaning a lack of the latter as a minor or absent
role of women in family planning – it shall be made a conceptual link between figure 3 and 4. Thus,
a more extended gender inequality is likely to be accompanied with a higher fertility rate – therefore
indicating less family planning. Figure 5 and 6 try to complete the framework of analysis. In figure
5, with predictable correspondence with figure 6, it is possible to observe the environmental
pressure of the poor as mentioned also in the present work. As UNDP (2013, p.95) reports,
“particularly in rural areas, the lack of modern fuels and electricity (and their high costs when
available) tend to reinforce gender inequalities”. It is important to recall that collection of solid fuel,
energy and water is usually done by women and girls, having a big impact on their educational and
community life management. In terms of environment, therefore, women play a crucial role, acting
in different fields, like managing cattle, crops, working in traditional agriculture, contributing to
family and community development, but having denied at the same time hours for education and
13
health-care learning (UNDP, 2013). Reflecting broader, it may be observed the correlation between
the dramatic gender-gap of sub-Saharan countries (fig.3), high fertility rate (and hence absence of
family planning in fig.4) and the environmental impact of the poor, combining figs. 5 and 6.
Resuming the findings of the work, promoting an equitable sustainable development requires
a concrete understanding of gender together with its relation to environment, unleashing an
approach that is transversal. Although having focused the analysis in a few themes, the concept of
sustainable development extends itself to all areas of policy-making, due to its cross-sectorial
nature. Hence, it is impossible to simply separate human development issues from sustainable ones,
intending the latter as just physical or biological processes – the ways in which social and
ecological patterns interact cannot be simply separated (Rico, 1998).
However, policy-makers and developmental organisations should escape from treating
women as just resources (Rico, 1998), but distinguishing among women’s experiences of
environmental relationship or degradation. It is likewise suggested that considering reducing
gender-gap as key of sustainable development means to consider relations of growth processes and
environment, power relations and societal influences (gender relationships, traditions, culture,
migration), considering a broad developmental model. Overall, reducing the gender-gap constitutes
a key in promoting an equitable development, as its positive outcomes reverberate in cross-cutting
fundamental fields, such as education, health, environment and policy-making.
Figure 7. Mutual relation between gender and environment through a multi-sectorial approach.
Source: Rico, 1998.
A global action on gender-equity in sustainable development should enforce the following
aspects: i) strengthening a gender-aware governance taking into consideration different perspectives
of developmental aspects as environmental problems do not affect all equally; ii) narrowing gender
gaps in human endowments (WB, 2011), taking into account reproductive health, access to water
and productive factors (capital and land), education and equalising gendered-activities; iii) inclusive
safety, comprising equally paid and non-paid work, and an extensive poverty reduction programme,
considering the different needs of men and women; iv)connecting global and local level:
persistency of gender-gaps as a challenge of sustainable development may due to multiple factors,
therefore leading us to state that reducing the gender-gap must not take into account only male-
female relations, but a number of constraints coming from market, formal and informal institutions,
environment and the enforced or non-enforced legal framework.
14
To sum up, further research shall be suggested to better assess how gender-gap may affect
sustainable development or if there is room for trade-off. It is, then, necessary to underline lack of
sex-disaggregated indicators or gender-related statistics, therefore leading to a lack of global
overview about men-women relations, above all in environmental issues. Assumptions are still
correlated to empirical and country-based studies. More cross-sectorial research shall be
encouraged.
15
Bibliography
Alkire S. et al., 1994. Environmental Degradation and Social Integration. UNRISD Briefing Paper
No. 3 World Summit For Social Development.
Bezahib M. and Stein H., 2010. The Role of Land Certification in Reducing Gender Gaps in
Productivity in Rural Ethiopia. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series. EfD DP 10-
23.
FAO, 2011a. The State of Food and Agriculture. Women in Agriculture. Closing the Gender Gap
for Development. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, available from
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf>
FAO, 2011b. The Role of Women in Agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11-02. Available from
<http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am307e/am307e00.pdf>
IFAD, 2006. Gender and Desertification. Expanding Roles for Women to Restore Dryland Areas.
Available from < http://www.ifad.org/pub/gender/desert/gender_desert.pdf>
IISD, 2004. Summary Report of the Global Women’s Assembly on Environment: Women as the
Voice for the Environment. Vol. 97, n.1.
Jackson C., 1993. Doing What Comes Naturally?Women and Environment in Development. World
Development, Vol. 21, No. 12, pp. 1947-1963. Available from <
http://josiah.berkeley.edu/2007Fall/ER275/Readings/DP3/jackson-GAD-1993.pdf>
Johnson-Latham, G., 2007. A Study on Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable
Development. Report to the Environment Advisory Council 2007, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kishor S. and Subaiya L., 2008. Understanding Women’s Empowerment: A Comparative Analysis
of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), available at
<http://genderassets.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/cr20.pdf>
Moser, C. O. N, 1993. Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training.
Routledge, London.
Moghadan, V. M., 2005. The ‘Feminization of Poverty’ and Women’s Human Rights. SHS Papers
in Women’s Studies/Gender Research, Social and Human Sciences Sector UNESCO, vol. 2.
Available from <http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/Feminization_of_Poverty.pdf>
Nugent C., Shandra J. M., 2005. State Environmental Protection Efforts, Women’s Status, and
World Polity A Cross-National Analysis. Organization & EnvironmentVolume 22 Number 2
June 2009 208-229, 2009 Sage Publications.
Norgaard K., York R., 2005. Gender Equality and Environmentalism. Gender and Society, Vol. 19,
No.4 (August), pp. 506-522.
OPHI, 2011.Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. http://www.ophi.org.uk/
16
Parpart et al., 2000. Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development. Ottawa, Canada, IDRC.
Rico M. N., 1998. Gender, the Environment and the Sustainability of Development. United Nations,
Santiago, Chile.
Shea Project, 2008. The Shea Projects: Rebuilding the Lives and the Livelihoods in Northern
Uganda. Available from < http://www.thesheaproject.org/downloads/TheSheaProject2008-
2012.pdf>
Todaro, M. P., Smith S. C., 2011. Economic development. Pearson Higher Ed., London.
UN, 1987. Our Common Future. Available from < http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-
Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf >
UN, 2002. Gender Mainstream. An Overview. Available from <
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/e65237.pdf>
UNDP, 2005. En Route to Equality: a Gender Review of National MDG Reports 2005. Bureau of
Development Policy, available from
<http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/womens-empowerment/en-
route-to-equality-a-gender-review-of-national-mdg-reports-2005/en-route-to-equality.pdf> []
UNDP, 2011. Human Development Report 2011, Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All.
< http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf>
UNDP, 2013. Powerful Synergies: Gender Equality, Economic Development and Environmental
Sustainability. available from
<http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/f_PowerfulSynergies2013_Web.pdf>
UNECE, 2010. Conference of European Statisticians. Working Session on Gender Statistics.
Working paper 9. Geneva, Switzerland. Available from <
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.30/2010/9.e.pdf>
UNEP, 2004. Women and the Environment, available at
<http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=468&ArticleID=4488>
UNIFEM, 2012. Women, Poverty & Economics. www.unifem.org
UNRISD, 1994. Environmental Degradation and Social Integration Briefing. Paper No. 3 Word
Summit For Social Development 1994.
Warth L., Koparanova M., 2012, Empowering Women for Sustainable Development. UNECE
Discussion Paper Series. Available from <
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/oes/disc_papers/ECE_DP_2012-1.pdf>
WB, 2010. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Available from
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5287678-1226014527953/WDR10-
Full-Text.pdf>
17
WB, 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security and Development. Available from
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/WDR2011_Full_Text.pdf>
WB, 2012. World Development Report: Gender Equality and Development. Available from
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2012/Resources/7778105-1299699968583/7786210-
1315936222006/Complete-Report.pdf>
WEF, 2013. The Global Gender Gap Report. Available from
<http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf>
Westermann, O, Ashby J., and Pretty J., 2005. Gender and Social Capital: The importance of
gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management
groups. World Development 33.11 (2005): 1783-1799.
WHO, 2010. Map Gallery. Available from < http://www.who.int/gho/map_gallery/en/>
18
19
