Gender blindness of SPS fails to integrate gender considerations
Titi Soentoro, NADI
The Draft Safeguard Policy Statement (SPS) fails to recognize gender dimension in the society, which constructs men and women in different roles and responsibilities, and therefore, men and women having different experiences in facing problems. The ‘gender blindness’ of the SPS will maintain or, worse, increase the existing gender disparities and injustices – in forms of discrimination, double burden, stereotyping, violence, subordination and marginalization – in the communities of their funded projects, as it overlooks the existence of more than half of the people related to its funded projects and policies.
The Safeguard Policies, specifically on Involuntary Resettlement, Indigenous Peoples and Environment, in their objectives, scopes and policy principles, 1 similarly have no specific considerations for women and indigenous women. These policies ignore that women are part of peoples and indigenous peoples, and encounter specific challenges in dealing with development activities in their communities such as gendered impacts, non-involvement in decision making or in giving consent, vulnerability to cheap labor, sexual exploitation and violence.
Gendered impacts
The Involuntary Resettlement Policy stated, “... enhance or at least restore the livelihoods of all affected people in real terms relative to pre-project levels and improve the standards of living of the affected poor and other vulnerable groups …” Affected people are not gender neutral because they consist of men and women with different gender roles in their society. Ignorance to this premise means that the IR Policy will not include restoration of women’s lives if the project creates or intensifies existing gender disparities and injustices. If there are no specific measures to deal with women’s problems caused by involuntary resettlement, the objective of this principle will restore only in accordance to half of the communities affected, which at the end, will not restore any livelihood at all.
Furthermore, the scope of the principles doesn’t cover impacts and risks of displacement to women -– whether it creates or increases gender injustices.
The IR principles don’t recognize gendered impacts and risks of involuntary resettlement to women at the project screening stage (Policy Principle 1). The result of resettlement planning processes, which include corrective measures, won’t cover gender injustices created or aggravated by its projects. Therefore, women will be left out from these corrective measures.
The gendered disaggregated social and impacts assessment mentioned in Policy Principle 1 of the IR Policy is not enough to give description of women’s condition without specifically considering approaches that are capable to identify gender injustices. The liberal approach of ‘Women in Development’ or ‘Gender and Development’ that solely looks at women’s issues regarding gender inequalities according to their gender role in the society, is not enough to identify other issues related to class, caste, race and ethnic, culture, sexuality, religions, and political beliefs, among others, which have already existed and potentially worsened through ADB policies and projects.
In the project completion report, as written in Policy Principle 9 of the IR Safeguards, there is no requirement to assess gendered impacts of the project. Problems of gender injustices, which have been created or worsened by projects, faced by displaced women and girls, therefore, will not be resolved.
The Policy Principle 2 of the Environmental Safeguards doesn’t require analysis of risks and impacts of environmental degradation to women, for example, to their reproductive health or on double burden of women, as a part of the environmental impacts assessment. Moreover, the policy does not consider the risk and security of women’s economic activities due to environmental degradation and lost of livelihood. This could further lead to increasing vulnerability of women and girls to cheap labor, sexual harassment and violence, and discrimination.
Female headed household
If we look at Policy Principle 3 of the IR safeguards, there are no measures that specifically improve or at least restore the lives of the female-headed households. Many governments only consider households which are headed by men (husbands), although millions of household in developing countries are female-headed. Since only men are acknowledged as the decision makers in public, women who head their respective families, will not be involved in the decision-making processes at the community level. Usually, women as the head of family will ask their male members – father, uncle, brother, brother in law -- to represent them in public. The male members of the family would mostly represent only men’s perspective on the problems, but not women’s. This could make female-headed families left out from any scheme of resettlement, restoration or compensation plans. There will be no consideration for example, how a woman with children but without husband will be integrated into the resettlement community without being made vulnerable to discrimination, violence, stereotyping and marginalization. Many times, women and girls are the first target of hatred if the hosting communities are forced to accept the relocated families in their areas.
In Policy Principle 8 of the IR safeguards, the compensation scheme does not pay specific attention to displaced women particularly if she is the head of family or unmarried. They will be left out from the scheme or represented by men, which could lead to the loss of their access and control over IR schemes and plans.
Decision making
Free prior informed consultation mentioned in Policy Principle 2 of the Indigenous People Safeguards ignores the right to make decisions as guaranteed by the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 1, point 2 of ICESCR states, “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” 2 Further, article 11, point 1, states, “… The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.”
This principle also fails to fulfill the requirement of the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) regarding the participation of women in decision-making regarding the development in their region. Article 14, point 2 states, “ States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, that they participate in and benefit from rural development and, in particular, shall ensure to such women the right: (a) To participate in the elaboration and implementation of development planning at all levels; (b) To have access to adequate health care facilities, including information, counselling and services in family planning; (c) To benefit directly from social security programmes; (d) To obtain all types of training and education, formal and non-formal, including that relating to functional literacy, as well as, inter alia, the benefit of all community and extension services, in order to increase their technical proficiency; (e) To organize self-help groups and co-operatives in order to obtain equal access to economic opportunities through employment or self employment; (f) To participate in all community activities; (g) To have access to agricultural credit and loans, marketing facilities, appropriate technology and equal treatment in land and agrarian reform as well as in land resettlement schemes; (h) To enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and communications.” 3
Women are in different situation as men based on their gender role. They are placed in domestic sphere, not in public sphere -- a place to make decisions that determine lives of the whole community. Furthermore, they are not expected to give opinions though decision made will affect women’s lives more than men. Therefore, women are not used to attend meetings with and or among men, to articulate their opinions, discuss and debate on particular issues. Considering this condition, there should be specific measures to get opinion and consent from women regarding projects in their areas. The SPS does not provide any provisions and requirements to address involvement of women in the decision making.
Failure to fulfill the requirement of the ADB Policy on Gender and Development
The ADB gender policy and good practice require that all ADB operations address gender issues. The SPS almost entirely fails to integrate gender concerns, including safeguard elements of the ADB gender policy. 4 The ADB’s Policy on Gender & Development in the Bank’s operations requires, “addressing gender considerations in ADB’s macroeconomic, sector, strategy, and programming work, including studies on the impact of economic reform programs on women; undertaking gender analysis in projects; and ensuring the consideration of gender issues at all stages of the project cycle, including identification, preparation, appraisal, implementation, operation and maintenance, and monitoring and evaluation.” The Bank fails to integrate in its SPS the safeguard elements from its own gender policy.
Sources:
1 ADB, Consultation draft of the Safeguard Policy Statement, October 2007, VB, p. 14-16
2 http://www.unhcr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm
3 http: //www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/ecomvention.htm#article 14
4 Suzanna Dennis, “Failing to Safeguard Gender Equality: Comments on the ADB Consultation Draft of Safeguard Policy Statement,” Gender Action, December 2007, in Stephanie Fried (ed.), Summary of Concerns regarding the ADB’s Draft Safeguard Policy Statement: Unacceptable Weakening of ADB Environmental and Social Standards Concerns regarding the Continuation of Public Consultations Based on Deeply Flawed and Missing Documents, January 17, 2008