Women and REDD

Photo by Rita Willaert – Flickr

IUCN and partners recently launched a gender initiative which aims to ensure that women are an integral part of negotiations on climate change agreements.

At the recent UN climate summit in Cancun, one of the leading topics of discussion was REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation). REDD is an international process that seeks to reduce the effects of climate change due to the logging and mismanagement of forests, by paying local communities to protect the forests they live in. REDD aims to reduce greenhouse gases while delivering benefits such as biodiversity conservation, sustainable management and poverty alleviation (known as REDD+).

Until recently, negotiations on REDD pilot programs across the world have been conducted with little or no input from the women living in forest communities. According to IUCN, women make up to 70 per cent of the world’s poor and provide up 90 per cent of the food in forest-dependent communities. In many rural societies, women hold all the accumulated knowledge about the food, medicines and other household products that forests supply.

During the Cancun climate talks, IUCN and partners launched a gender initiative that aims to ensure that women are an integral part of REDD negotiations, and that all REDD agreements recognise the differentiated needs of women and men within forest communities. IUCN’s Global Senior Advisor on Gender, Lorena Aguilar, was in Cancun to launch the initiative. She spoke after the summit to HPHP Central about the critical role women play in climate action.

How do men and women differ in the way they use forests?
Women have been users of forest resources for centuries, and men and women use forests in different ways. When we and other institutions have conducted research into the use of forests, we’ve found that men use forests for timber; while women use more the non-timber products, for example the medicines they obtain, the food for their households, the different type of materials to build their houses, to produce crafts…. Then we have women around the world that have owned forests and that have protected the forests. So women’s roles all around the world vary, we cannot say that all the women and all the men have the same relationship with forests. But women do have a very important role to play, and we can’t afford to have processes that are going to be looking at the maintenance of some of these forests, and the benefits of some of these forests, and not bring women into the picture. It’s completely unfair not to recognise that. We have for example, payment for environmental services in the case of Panama, in which the money went only to the men. And it was used for alcohol and drugs and the women were very upset. They said: ‘This is our forest as well, we have kept it, why did you give the money only to the men?’

How do you ensure some of the benefits from REDD go to women?
It’s important that women are present when these negotiations are happening, that they understand what these negotiations are. That’s the reason that we’re talking a lot about building the capacity on what is REDD. But women have to be at the table, with the power and the knowledge to make informed decisions on REDD and on how the money’s going to be distributed and how it can help their communities. Because they’re not there, they’re not invited as a major stakeholder. Then they have no idea where the money goes. That’s what we’re talking about – they have the right to be there, to participate and the make decisions about how the money should be spent.

What are some of the practical measures you have adopted to get women involved in REDD negotiations?
One of the advantages of REDD is that it’s something new that no one has done before. This is not a women issue or a men issue, the communities have not yet put a tag onto these processes, so you have a tremendous opportunity to go and say: ‘This process is going to be with everyone in the community, men and women.’ So I think that the possibilities are there, the willingness in some of these institutions is there. For example IUCN has been doing this process in Ghana so far, and we have put as a condition that women have to come. Sometimes you need a special forum for them because they will not speak when the men are there, but that’s our role. Some of the women have been telling us, for example, that they have been conducting meetings in places where the women are not allowed, places where they play pool, or a bar – and that’s the sort of thing [they] should not be doing.

Are there examples of positive inclusion of women in any pilot REDD programs?
There are many examples. There is a women’s organisation that is working in Nepal right now, where you have a federation of women foresters, owners of forests that are coming together to really understand what REDD is all about, and to organise themselves on how they’re going to move forward on REDD. And it’s not only about selling carbon – we also have examples in Honduras, in Costa Rica, in which women have become the monitoring units for a set of projects. A lot when it comes to REDD is going to depend on monitoring and verification, so there are a lot of ways that women can be involved.

Projects for example in Guatemala and Ghana, they’re looking at the causes of deforestation, and we also have to recognise that when it comes to firewood consumption, women are playing a major role when it comes to unproper use of the forests. It’s not always that women hug the forests and love the trees! There is a need to understand that when it comes to the drivers of deforestation, women are playing a role – especially when it comes to household consumption and to the certain activities that they do. So these are some of the ways in which we’re bringing women into the picture.

What do you make of the concerns of some groups that REDD will violate indigenous peoples’ rights to land?
There are of course things that we have to look after, but for the first time in many years we’re talking about governance issues when it comes to forests, we’re talking about land rights when it comes to forests, and I think that REDD has put back into many discussions something that has not been a part of anyone’s discussions for a long time – the issue of forests and governance and land tenure. For example for women land tenure is a major issue when we’re talking about REDD, so it needs to be addressed. And this brings a possibility of it being addressed – that if we have the right voices, the right people at the right place, we can do a lot. And of course we have to be very cautious, but that’s the reason that we need as many people informed and their voices heard in this process – because REDD is a reality.

Were you happy with negotiations in Cancun and the resulting climate agreements?
I have to be very happy for gender! We have gender references in the new text under negotiation. We started this process of trying to advocate for gender sensitive language for more than two years – when we started this process there was not a single mention on gender issues. We started a long process of building capacity to parties and delegates of why gender was important in adaptation, in mitigation, in technologies, in financing mechanisms, and now the parties are moving forward. We have them from the Arab states to the state departments to the small islands, all presenting text on gender. So in that respect I have to say it’s very encouraging for the first time to see very concise and very good gender text in the negotiations.

Leave a comment