WUNRN
Direct Link to Full
53-Page Rio + 20 Outcome Document:
Governments Gamble with our
Future.
South
Feminists Demand Responsible Action Now
22 June
2012, Rio de Janeiro
While governments were locked in their semantic battles in the
Rio+20 process, women's and other social movements continue to fight on
multiple fronts for human rights, justice and sustainability. These struggles
take place on diverse territories and geographies including the body, land,
oceans and waterways, communities, states, and epistemological grounds. Each of
these terrains is fraught with the resurgent forces of patriarchy, finance
capitalism, neo-conservatism, consumerism, militarism and extractivism.
An understanding of the deeper structural roots of the crises we
face today and analytical clarity on the interlinkages between different
dimensions are both critical. There is no core recognition that the multiple
crises we face are caused by the current anthropocentric development model
rooted in unsustainable production and consumption patterns, and
financialisation of the economy that are all based on and exacerbate gender,
race and class inequities.
In sharp contrast to twenty years ago at the historic Earth
Summit when linkages between gender and all three pillars of sustainable
development were substantively acknowledged, the Rio+20 outcome document has
relegated women's rights and gender equality to the periphery without
recognition of a wider structural analysis.
Over the past few months we have witnessed and confronted
attempts by a small group of ultra conservative states (with the strong support
of an observer state - the Holy See), to roll back hard won agreements on
women's rights. We are outraged that a vocal minority have hijacked the text on
gender and health and blocked mention of sexual and reproductive rights,
claiming that these have nothing to do with sustainable development. Meanwhile
most states concentrate on what they considered their 'big ticket' items of
finance, trade and aid with little interest to incorporate a gender analysis
into these macroeconomic issues.
There is a reference to women's "unpaid work" but
without recognizing the unequal and unfair burden that women carry in
sustaining care and wellbeing (para 153). This is further exacerbated in times
of economic and ecological crisis when women's unpaid labour acts as a
stabilizer and their burden increases. For example, reference to the root
causes of excessive food price volatility, including its structural causes, is
not linked to the risks and burdens that are disproportionately borne by women
(para 116). Development is not sustainable if care and social reproduction are
not recognized as intrinsically linked with the productive economy and
reflected in macroeconomic policy-making.
Reference is made to the critical role that rural women play in
food security through traditional sustainable agricultural practices including
traditional seed supply systems (para 109). However these are under severe
threat unless governments stop prioritising export oriented agribusiness. The
reason why such wrong-headed policies are not adequately addressed is because of
corporate interests that are protected in the Rio+20 outcome.
Northern governments advocating for such corporate interests
have warped the sustainable development paradigm in the so-called 'green
economy' that is skewed toward the economic pillar, emphasising sustained
economic growth over equitable development and without any ecological limits.
Within this section women are regarded as either welfare recipients or as a
supplier of labor for the green economy, but not acknowledged as rights
holders, especially of economic, social and cultural rights (paras 58k &
l).
The 'green economy' concept is somewhat challenged in the text
by an affirmation of diverse visions, models and approaches to development as
well as the policy space to integrate all three dimensions of sustainable
development (para 56). While the recognition of policy space and sovereignty
over natural resources, is important, there is a need to deeply question a
development model that is based on extractivism and that fails to take into
account social and ecological costs.
While the Rio principles including common but differentiated
responsibilities are reaffirmed at Rio+20, the outcome is imbalanced across the
three pillars of sustainable development without sufficient attention to gender
and social justice, including women's rights. It fails to tackle the systemic
inequities of the international monetary, financial and trading systems; and
prioritises economic growth over the ecology and equity.
Feminists across the global South will continue to demand that
governments stop regressing on their commitments and begin to seriously address
the structural transformations that are required for genuine sustainable
development.
Endorsed by:
DAWN Executive Committee:
Nicole Bidegain - Uruguay
Cai Yiping - China
Gigi Francisco - Philippines
Noelene Nabulivou - Fiji
Anita Nayar - India/USA
Kumudini Samuel - Sri Lanka
Gita Sen - India
DAWN Team at Rio+20:
Sophea Chrek, Social Action for Change/ GEEJ-Asia Alumni - Cambodia
Hibist Kassa, Socialist Worker Student Society/ GEEJ-Africa Alumni - Ghana
Rosa Koian, Bismark Ramu Group - Papua New Guinea
Romyen 'Mo' Kosaikanont, Mae Fah Luang University - Thailand
Mónica Novillo, Coordinadora de la Mujer/ DTI Alumni - Bolivia
Maureen Penjueli, Pacific Network on Globalisation - Fiji
Lalaine Viado, DAWN Associate - Philippines
Wang Jue, DTI Alumni - China