The discussion on whether and how the SDGs can accelerate progress towards gender equality has to be located in the context that gender inequality persists, particularly in the spheres of politics, economy, sexual & reproductive justice, and violence against women. Yet it is 100 years since the first International Women’s Day (1917) was celebrated. The key question is what is the international community is going to do to promote gender equality that is different, apart from devoting a SDG to the same (SDG 5) and integrating gender equality into few others - like end poverty, end hunger, ensure healthy lives and ensure equitable education?
One needs to agree that gender equality is central to all development issues - not just the soft SDGs listed above - and all development issues have a bearing on gender equality. Unfortunately gender equality is not integrated into the SDGs around clean energy, resilient infrastructure, sustainable consumption/production, conservation of marine resources and protection of terrestrial resources. There is much more progress required in understanding the interrelationship between gender and the SDGs on these ‘hard’ development issues, what I call the ‘gender interlinkage’ deficit.
A second issue is identifying culturally specific ‘critical factors’ that accelerate progress towards gender equality spanning several SDGs. For example, for decades, education of girl children has been emphasized as “The” critical factor in women’s/girls’ empowerment which would delay age at marriage, delay age at first pregnancy, empower the girl and strengthen child rearing practices. That is, these instrumental and intrinsic arguments were cited behind the ‘girl child education’ movement. Yet the impact of girl child education on empowerment of women and girls has not been unilinear. It is time to think of context/regional-specific factors like marriages by choice or 'choice marraiges' (which go along with no/less dowry, greater freedom for women to work, greater sharing of care and so on), combatting son preference, state, market and community support for 'care work' [caring for children, family, community members] and property rights of women as critical to achieving gender equality.
Many of these critical factors are multi-sectoral - as well as multi-SDG. Thus, there is the need to move from departmental gender-integration to multi-departmental gender integration. There are three approaches to such integration: bottom up, horizontal and top down. In Tamil Nadu, India, the Corporation for Development of Women had formed women’s self-help groups and federated them. In one of the federation meetings, the women wanted access to a women’s lawyer one day a week for legal services related to property rights and violence against women. The Corporation had to link with the Law Department for provision of such services. The above is an example of bottom-up driven integration. An example of horizontal integration is that of Local Government Engineering Department and Department of Women Affairs and which came together to form a market committee with women’s representatives participatiing in them. Every few months the two departments came together to monitor women’s leadership. In Nepal one can see an example of horizontal integration but of a different kind - with involvement of several departments and civil society organizations (including women’s rights organization). The National Planning Commission involved the above stakeholders for SDG planning and monitoring with disaggregated targets/indicators suited to their country - but keeping within the broad framework of SDGs.
To progress towards gender equality, gender integration across departments engaged in different SDGs is required here: i) policy and program levels; ii) structural level – focal points, committees; iii) budgets and expenditures; iv) staff capacities and agency on gender; v) gender transformative leadership. The challenge is to integrate gender across departments for gender-transformative reasons and not just instrumental ones. There is also the need to move from formal towards substantive gender and social equality - remove the hurdles that prevent women from making using of opportunities. With advocacy for gender equality, there is the need to advocate for minimum floors [of income and conditions] for working class women, and ceilings [of profit/gain] for the rich so that poor women have enough resources for decent work and livelihood. State, markets and civil society need to rise up to the challenge to make the dreams of (marginalized) women a reality.
Comments
Commendable
Greetings All,
This is commendable.
Adams Peter Eloyi
THE YOUTH ARE THE VANGUARD OF EVERY REVOLUTION.THEY MUST ENSURE TO ELECT GOOD LEADERS ''Maitama Sule''
Gaps and Action
Dear Ms. Ranjani K. Murthy,
I am impressed the way you have pointed out the gaps and action about the role of Gender in achieving SDG.
We are interested to know more your action that you undertake in future. We are trying to empower women within project activities involving Sundarbans resource dependent community and practicing climate adaptive practices.
We appreciate if CI can allocate some funds to address our activities aligned with SDG in cooperation with your activities.
Best regards,
Mowdud
Gender and Climate Change
Dear Mowdud,
Thanks, it would be nice if your organisation could look at gender, diversity and climate change as part of SDGs. The SDG 13 on Taking urgent action against climate change has little to say on gender issues- for example women's knowledge on seeds in different temperature setting, gender and livestock protection, gender, water and work load of women etc
I am not from the CI to comment on availability of funds from CI.
Best
Ranjani.K.Murthy
Researcher and Consultant
Gender and Development
Chennai
India
Gender equality progress idea
Gender enhancement modalities
You highlight some interesting issues related to gender advancement. Allow me to share my perspective.
You note that “There are three approaches to such integration: bottom up, horizontal and top down”. Of course this is correct; however, aside from the direction from which initiatives are made, an oft neglected element is the manner or process in which the ensuing discussions, deliberations, decisions and implementations are formulated. In my mind, an apt comparison is with the concept of transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity.
Some years back, I was engaged to develop an effort with an Asian university to counter the increasing conflicts between extractive industries and their adjoining communities related to encroachment, felling, pollution, road blockages, compensation and so on, leading to sometimes violent interactions. It became clear that while there was considerable interaction among foresters, extractives experts and some other sectoral specialists, three crucial elements were impacting sustainable resolutions.
The first was that an increasing number of scenarios presented complex contexts that were unsolvable by the key representatives, mainly because understanding all issues required considerably more experience and/or knowledge.
The second was that often answers or suggestions had been sought from others by bilateral communication, that is, for example, a forester meeting with the extractive industry’s community liaison, or the forester meeting with an officer of another government department (perhaps land registration or education secretary etc.).
The third was that decisions were made by the senior representatives in the respective hierarchies of the local extractive industry and the government forester responsible for the area.
In technical terms, participants could claim to be transdisciplinary as they were meeting and discussing with stakeholders from other disciplines, sectors etc.; however, this was often done in a binary fashion, one speaking with another to bounce ideas around. What was needed, however—and this is where perhaps some gender efforts could improve—was what I call interdisciplinarity, in which system the various stakeholder representatives would actually sit and discuss together. In this way issues that arise could be immediately reacted to by people from other backgrounds who, from their respective perspectives can notice errors, benefits and potential solutions that in binary discussions may never arise.
The offshoot of that realisation in my project was that the team to collectively analyse, recommend and execute decisions was thereafter composed of a forester, educator, dendrologist, lawyer, gender specialist, anthropologist and extractive industry representative.
My strong recommendation, therefore, is that whichever direction a gender initiative starts, it be done in an interdisciplinary mode, collectively involving key stakeholder representatives.
Organising the marginalised
Dear Isomlai
Thanks for your response.
Like you have observed inter-disciplinary perspective is required in addition to coordinated response by different response.
Further, your narration reveals the power relations at different levels- between marginalised and others- and the need for organising the margainalised (with women at the helm). The direct voice of the marginalised is represented in advocacy- and this is a gap that does need to be bridged.
Ranjani.K.Murthy
Researcher and Consultant
Gender and Development
Chennai
India
Post new comment