7.1 Introduction
Diversity is, in many ways, the basis of women’s politics and the politics of ecology; gender politics is largely the politics of difference. Eco-politics, too, is based on nature’s variety and difference.…1
Due in part to these inherent qualities, ecofeminism can be understood as a significant aspect of the politics of inclusion. Ecofeminism is rooted in the dynamic and diverse social and political milieu provided by feminist and ecol-ogy movements. As such, it recognises the pervasive, complex and multifarious nature of oppression/exclusion. Sustainability too, with its emphasis on the role of bottom-up participation in governance in augmenting orthodox international practice in this area, also espouses the new inclusiveness. The foundational Brundtland Report is notable in this regard, observing that:
The law alone cannot enforce the common interest. It principally needs community knowledge and support, which entails greater public parti-cipation in the decisions that affect the environment. This is best secured by decentralizing the management of resources upon which local communities depend, and giving these communities an effective say over the use of these resources. It will also require promoting citizens’
initiatives, empowering people’s organizations, and strengthening local democracy.2
While it is important to recognise that‘participation and sustainable devel-opment are both ambiguous concepts’,3 the potential for productive linkage and synergistic dialogue between ecofeminism and sustainability in respect of advocating and actualising more inclusive approaches to environmental decision-making is clearly worthy of further examination.
Realising the full potential of inclusive approaches to decision-making requires not only social and political change but also ultimately institutional and legislative innovation in order to address the manifest inequalities that
exclude certain voices from participation and power in the current polity, to the detriment of (amongst other things) sustainability. Discussion here will focus on the continuing relevance of ecofeminism and related approaches (specifically Lorraine Code’s concept of ‘ecological thinking’) in promoting debate in their specific spheres and in making a potentially significant con-tribution to a more inclusive political (and emerging legal) praxis in the sphere of sustainability. Particular emphasis will be placed on the contribu-tion of inclusive ecofeminist approaches to developing more sustainable decision-making processes, specifically through advocating an expanded view of viable inputs into both discursive and deliberative systems. This discussion builds on the broad approach towards valid participation that is already evident in environmental sociology,4and considers its ripeness for extension into the legal sphere.
7.2 Sustainability and the new inclusiveness
The principles that may be regarded as supporting sustainability, while not uncontroversial in themselves,5are, to a degree, the product of the interplay between global governance and increased awareness and scientific under-standing of the now potentially perilous impact of human activity on the biosphere across a range of functions, such as pollution, resource scarcity, loss of biodiversity and global warming. At the same time, moral, political and legal imperatives have also played a substantial role in fashioning sus-tainability thought and action. Spurred on by the work of economists6and scientists7 in particular, the international community sought to initiate change,8notably through setting up the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) to investigate sustainability. The WCED initiated a global consultation process (in itself exhibiting the new inclusiveness), cul-minating in the reportOur Common Future.9The report posited the need for, what would in social, economic, environmental and, not least, political terms10 constitute a radical change in the way humanity interacts with the environment.
However, underpinning the headlining (and indeed headline-grabbing) concept of sustainable development11 invoked by the Brundtland Report, lies the fundamental recognition that, to achieve sustainable development, the interna-tional community would need to alter not only the ways in which humanity relates to the environment but also the ways in which people relate to one another. To fully achieve this would require a fundamental re-visioning of prevailing concepts and systems of governance.
The viability of sustainable development as presented in the Brundtland Report is based in part on the concept of sustainable governance, which looks wider than the traditionally empowered categories of political actor in order to incorporate all stakeholders in a process that is as much, if not more, about growing sustainability up from grass-roots level as it is about attempting to promote it from above:
Environmental law and sustainability law 127
We call for a common endeavour and for new norms of behaviour at all levels and in the interests of all. The changes in attitudes, in social values, and in aspirations that the report urges will depend on vast campaigns of education, debate and public participation.
To this end, we appeal to citizens’groups, to non-governmental orga-nizations, to educational institutions, and to the scientific community.
They have all played indispensable roles in the creation of public awareness and political change in the past. They will play a crucial part in putting the world on to sustainable development paths, in laying the groundwork for Our Common Future.12
The Commission’s own methodology showed a commitment to wide parti-cipation in terms of information gathering process: notably, its deliberations were informed by the innovative use of public hearings dispersed across the globe to elicit information from a broad range of stakeholders.13 The need for governance reform to give voice to those normally excluded for decision-making processes is clearly articulated in the report:
It could be argued that the distribution of power and influence within society lies at the heart of most environment and development chal-lenges. Hence new approaches must involve programmes of social development, particularly to improve the position of women in society, to protect vulnerable groups, and to promote local participation in decision-making.14
Concepts of intergenerational and intra-generational equity are also pressed into service to underpin the need for an inclusive approach to decision-making:
Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation.15
While the intergenerational equity issues are philosophically fraught with (perhaps insurmountable) difficulties which tend to preoccupy the academy, the more immediate issues of intra-generational justice merit just as close attention, since: ‘ … many problems of resource depletion and environ-mental stress arise from disparities in economic and political power’.16 In this context, the fact that the WCED identified:‘ … a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision-making’17 as thefirst plank in the strategy for pursuing sustainable development seems particularly apposite. The Commission recognised that the contribution of NGO net-working and other activities to sustainability praxis was already significant and growing even at this stage.18In light of this, the report went so far as to
advocate a role for law in securing formal participation and supporting rights for NGOs as a core concern:
Recognition by states of their responsibility to ensure an adequate environment for present as well as future generations is an important step towards sustainable development. However, progress will also be facilitated by recognition of, for example, the right of individuals to know and have access to current information on the state of the envir-onment and natural resources, the right to be consulted and to partici-pate in decision-making on activities likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and the right to legal remedies and redress for those whose health or environment has been or may be seriously affected.19 While the Brundtland Report enthusiastically embraces the notion of an extremely prominent role for NGOs in progressing the sustainability agenda as an unalloyed good, a note of caution must be sounded: there is a danger that NGOs come to be seen, and to see themselves as acting, as a form of proxy for the public in terms of participation. This raises issues of the via-bility of NGOs’credentials in this regard, not least their ability to be repre-sentative of the public. Furthermore, over-reliance on NGO participation also raises the possibility of the public delegating both responsibility and activism to professional NGOs. These factors combine to leave little space for direct citizen involvement in decision-making processes.20 However, in particular where international law is concerned, but also, arguably given the complexity of environmental decision-making contexts, in the domestic sphere, it may be the case that, for most citizens, meaningful participation is beyond their grasp without the mediation and assistance of NGOs. In any event, post-Brundtland, the participation issue quickly became pressing, in particular in light of the crucial role played by environmental concerns in spurring the UN to action on sustainability in the UNCED in Rio in 1992.
The ongoing work of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) in its appointed task of fostering the development of Agenda 21 has played an important part, in principle at least in opening up governance in light of the sustainability imperative. It was only, however, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 that the sustainable governance agenda really came to the fore in the interna-tional community. The WSSD, in contrast to Rio, which was arguably dominated by NGOs, had a strong business steer21 in tandem with broader developments in this area in the popularisation and practice of Corporate Social Responsibility. One result of this was that a major theme of the summit was to develop‘partnership’approaches to governance. In so doing, it placed already powerful major groups, notably those representing business, industry, science and technology centre stage and, arguably effectively mar-ginalised other stakeholders in terms of influence if not participation. On the Environmental law and sustainability law 129
positive side, by drawing diverse parties into a co-operative endeavour (though this may in and of itself be problematic), the practice of partnership at least attempts to harness broader participation to defuse conflict and pursue goals. It also serves to render co-operation more formal and business-like. In any event, post-Johannesburg, civil society participation is now the norm in sustainability contexts generally and with respect to partnerships in particular. Partnership as pursued at the WSSD and beyond, while viewed on the whole as a fairly positive development (if limited by voluntarism) by some commentators,22 is seen as negative by others.23 On balance, while partnership is currently very much in vogue, it remains to be seen whether it actually offers much in the way of substantive change in the business of governance.
For all the interesting and often useful strategies adopted by the CSD in response to its ambitious and innovative remit to foster the sustainability agenda (in particular in actively involving major groups in its activities), it must be said that it remains a weak and marginal body,24 even within the UN. In any event, through developments in sustainability governance under the auspices of the CSD it has become clear that, for good or ill, the praxis of participation in governance for sustainability is, even where formal appearances remain broadly consistent,25capable of constantly changing and evolving, often quite profoundly, over time.26
7.3 Gender and the new inclusiveness
The value of looking at gender-based exclusion from power and decision-making is not only of interest in its own right. It also offers potentially valuable insights into the participation of marginalised and excluded groups in environmental law and the sustainability praxis more generally, as, in part, the latter attempts to address a multiplicity of excluded groups including women. In addition, inter-group permeability means that, for many women, the reality of their experience in this regard is the product of multiple/compounded exclusion, making the need to address the interactions between gender and other forms of marginalisation a particularly pressing one.
At the outset, it should be noted that, despite internal differences, the women’s movement had established global networks at its disposal that arguably meant it was comparatively well placed to exploit the opportunities provided by the forging of the sustainability agenda.27This, together with a cooperative modus operandi, enabled the women’s movement to develop a clear role in the new, more consensual sustainability-based governance. At the Rio Earth Summit, women’s groups exploited the opportunity to infl u-ence agenda-setting provided by the more inclusive approach emerging in this area as espoused by the Brundtland Report. In particular, the women’s movement was successful in promoting substantial changes to the draft of Agenda 21 (rendering the content of the formerly gender-blind working
document gendered throughout in its final form) through the pre-UNCED work of the UN Environment Programme/Women’s Environment and Devel-opment Organisation-run World Women’s Congress for a Healthy Planet.
Women were also included in the major groups whose participation was deemed crucial to progressing sustainability in Agenda 21. Significantly, gender also gained specific coverage in Principle 20 of the Rio Declaration.
In principle, subsequent UN initiatives such as the Beijing Platform of Action28and the Commission on the Status of Women’s Agreed Conclusions on the Status of Women and the Environment29 have continued to develop the integration of gender and environmental issues, albeit often with limited practical impact.30
Underpinning the Brundtland-inspired approach adopted by Agenda 21 is the recognition that sustainability is founded on sustainable decision-making which in turn requires participation in and ownership of decisions by all stakeholders, from the major groups to the individual. A viable sustainability paradigm therefore requires a shift in the locus of action far beyond tradi-tional state actors and the privileged cohorts that comprise the establishment in the development of international law and policy. Inclusiveness is particu-larly important here, as women are under-represented in these contexts, and as a result the established role of women in respect of the environment often imposes responsibility without power. If, as argued by the Brundtland Report, the success of sustainability depends on grass-roots change, this is not a viable prospect in the absence of empowerment of those who are expected to deliver on this – many of whom are women.31 Law, of course, has a role to play in addressing these issues. However, even when well intentioned (which is not always the case), the law can unintentionally aggravate adverse gender impacts in the environmental sphere.32 Still, sus-tainability demands sustainable outcomes, and to achieve this, decisions must be arrived at in a sustainable way, i.e. through sustainable processes produced by sustainable institutions; law must therefore be pressed into service to concrete effect in this regard.
In the past, strategies for tackling gender issues tended to focus on achieving gender neutrality as the solution. More recent thinking indicated that this may not be the answer and that better results on the ground could be achieved, first by developing policies focused on women,33 and to a greater degree by adopting the more thoroughgoing gender awareness espoused by what has become known as ‘gender mainstreaming’. Gender mainstreaming represents a third generation of gender policy (after‘in princi-ple’recognition and‘women’s issues’phases). Like sustainability, gender main-streaming necessarily requires the adoption of an integrationist approach to developing law and policy. Gender mainstreaming had its practical origins in the failures and limitations offirst and second generation policies on women.
Its theoretical basis, on the other hand, can be found in the UN’s 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, and in a more developed fashion, in the Environmental law and sustainability law 131
Beijing Plus-five Conference, Women 2000: Gender, Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-first Century. The ‘in principle’ commitment at such a high policy level was followed up by the introduction of System-wide Plans for the Advancement of Women and by a whole raft of internal gui-dance and training across the UN. A useful working definition of gender mainstreaming has been provided by the UN Economic and Social Council, which characterises it as:
…the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.34
The Council of Europe offers an alternative version comprising:
a gender equality strategy that aims to transform organizational processes and practices by eliminating gender biases in existing routines, involving the regular actors in this transformation process.35
Despite cosmetic differences, both definitions share the same basic aim of gender equality. While each encapsulates practically focused initiatives, they are both also geared (implicitly in the case of ECOSOC and explicitly in that of the Council of Europe) to the more profound issue of changing organisational culture.
The central problem is that, while the principles of both gender equality and sustainability may be fairly broadly accepted, principles do not make prescriptions. In both cases, realising these fairly abstract goods in practical terms is fraught with disagreement and difficulty, amplified by the additional complexity arising from the overlap between gender and sustainability. The OECD has taken an in-depth look at the relationship between gender and sustainable development36 as part both of its Horizontal Programme on Sustainable Development, and its contribution to the ongoing work of the CSD in this area. The OECD’s approach tackling cross-cutting issues in this area is to‘engender’its analytical, statistical and policy work37 in order to improve its policies and foster more sustainable development. Its focus tends to be on immediate practical concerns such as health and education, though it also recognises that the societal substructure, including political participa-tion and legal rights, also need to be addressed. This is commendable in real terms, as bodies tend to respond more effectively to concerns that can be addressed in practical terms rather than to more profound needs for change
in organisational culture.38At the same time, this focus can be rather reduc-tionist: there is a very real danger that a goal-setting and a tick-box-approach focus can become somewhat myopic. While intuitively appealing to a degree and arguably capable of solving some problems in isolation, the ‘practical’
approach can ultimately miss the underlying point and avoid the major issues that are the cause of the symptoms tackled.
7.4 Ecofeminism and sustainability
Karen Warren, a leading scholar in thefield, describes ecofeminism as pro-viding multicultural (on social domination in its many and varied forms) and pluralist perspectives39on:
… a variety of so-called ‘women–nature connections’ – historical, empirical, conceptual religious, literary, political, ethical, epistemologi-cal, methodological and theoretical connections on how one treats women and the earth.40
Warren further characterises the ecofeminist perspective as twofold:
Warren further characterises the ecofeminist perspective as twofold: