Representatives of over a dozen women’s organizations from Latin America, Africa, the MENA region and Asia stage a protest at the COP23 talks in Bonn. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
BONN, Germany, Nov 15 2017 (IPS)

“Five years ago, when we first started talking about including gender in the negotiations, the parties asked us, ‘Why gender?’ Today, they are asking, ‘How do we include gender?’ That’s the progress we have seen since Doha,” said Kalyani Raj.

Raj is a member and co-focal point of the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).“The representation of women environment and climate defenders is minimal at the COP as the UNFCCC has built a firewall around it." --indigenous leader Lina Gualinga

Established in 2009, the WGC is an umbrella group of 27 organizations working to make women’s voices and rights central to the ongoing discussions within the UNFCCC and the climate discussions known as COP23 in Bonn.

On Tuesday, as the COP observed Gender Day – a day specifically dedicated to address gender issues in climate change and celebrate women’s climate action – UNFCCC had just accepted the Gender Action Plan, a roadmap to integrate gender equality and women’s empowerment in all its discussions and actions.  For WGC and other women leaders attending the COP, this is a clear indication of progress on the gender front.

“For the first time ever, we are going to adopt a Gender Action Plan. It’s very good and over one year, it will be a matter of implementing it. So that’s where we are,” said Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Climate Change.

Gender Action Plan: The main points

The creation of a Gender Action Plan (GAP) was agreed upon by the countries at last year’s conference (COP22) in Morocco. All over the world, women face higher climate risks and greater burdens from the impacts of climate change. Yet they are often left out of the picture when decisions on climate action are made.

The aim of the GAP is to ensure that women can influence climate change decisions, and that women and men are represented equally in all aspects of the UNFCCC as a way to increase its effectiveness.

The GAP is made of five key goals that are crucial for improving the quality of life for women worldwide, as well as ensuring their representation in climate policy. These range from increasing knowledge and capacities of women and men to full, equal and meaningful participation of women in national delegations, including women from grassroots organizations, local and indigenous peoples and women from Small Island Developing States.

In brief, the five goals are:

• Gender-responsive climate policy including gender budgeting
• Increased availability of sex and gender disaggregated data and analysis at all levels
• Gender balance in all aspects of climate change policy including all levels of UNFCCC.
• 100% gender-responsive climate finance
• 100% gender responsive approach in technology transfer and development.

The adopted draft, however, is a much watered-down version of the draft GAP that the GEC submitted. It has omitted several of the demands, especially on including indigenous women and women human rights defenders in the climate action plan.

“I would have expected a much-expressed acknowledgement of the participation, the voices and the knowledge of the indigenous and local women. We worked very hard to get that in, but it’s not there as much as I would have liked,” said Robinson, before adding that the adoption of the GAP, nonetheless, is “definitely some progress.”

Nobel laureate Mary Robinson poses impromptu before a wall covered in portraits of male leaders at the Bonn climate talks. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Omission leads to disappointment

Not everyone, however, is taking the omissions in the GAP quietly. At Tuesday noon, representatives of over a dozen women’s organizations from Latin America, Africa, the MENA region and Asia gathered at Bula zone 1 – where the negotiations are taking place and held a protest.

“We are here because we want to tell the parties that women human rights defenders are legitimate and critical actors not only in SDG 5, but all the SDGs including combating climate change and all areas of 2030 agenda and Paris Agreement,” said a protester as others nodded in silence, their mouth sealed with black tape.

Prior to the protest, however, Lina Gualinga, an indigenous leader from the Kichwa tribe in Ecuador shared some details of how women environmental activists feel.

“The representation of women environment and climate defenders is minimal at the COP as the UNFCCC has built a firewall around it. So, very few women can actually be here and be part of the COP,” she said.

“In the meantime, the language of the negotiations is drafted and shaped leaving no room to address our concerns. For example, what is sustainable development? For us, it’s nothing but clean water, fresh air, fertile land. Is that reflected in the language of the COP?” she asked.

No access to climate finance

Besides the continuous disappointment over human rights and indigenous issues, accessing finance has emerged as the biggest hurdle for women climate leaders. According to Robinson, the number of women who are getting climate finance is shockingly small.

“The latest figures by OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) shows that only 2 percent of the finance is going to women in the grassroots and southern groups. Only 2 percent! Its tiny. And yet that is where an awful lot of climate work is taking place, where women are trying to make themselves resilient,” Robinson said.

There are three simple ways to solve this, she said:  One, increase local funding. Two, simplify the process to access climate. And three, train women in new, green technologies.

Citing the example of the Barefoot College in India –  a government funded and NGO-run institution that trains women from developing countries in solar technologies before they become “Solar Mamas” or solar entrepreneurs – Robinson said that trainings like this are a great way to include women in climate action at the local level.

“This not only builds their capacity to be more climate resilient, but also helps them become economically empowered,” she said, before admitting that more such initiatives would require more direct funding by local institutions.

Numbers still missing

White the central debate is on mainstreaming gender in the core process of negotiations, some also want to draw attention to the low representation of women in the conference. At the 2015 Paris summit, just over 38 percent of national delegations were women, with Peru, Hungary, Lesotho, Italy and Kiribati among the most balanced delegations and Mauritius, Yemen, Afghanistan and Oman the least.

This year, some countries such as Turkey, Poland and Fiji have 50 percent female delegates while three countries – Latvia, Albania and Guyana – have sent all-female delegations. But the average percentage of female negotiators at country delegations is still 38. Several countries, including Somalia, Eritrea and Uzbekistan, did not include a single women in their delegations.

Noelene Nabulivou, an activist from Fiji, said that it’s time to seriously fill the gender gap at the conference.

“If we are asking for equal opportunity, why can’t we ask for equal participation?” asked Nabulivou.

Meanwhile, Kalyani Raj thinks that quotas could limit the potential scope. “We want a balance, but at the same time, why limit ourselves to a mere 50 percent? It could be anything!” said Raj.

The first report to evaluate the progress on the implementation of the Gender Action Plan will be presented in November 2019.

By Lydia Lim
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 12 2013 (IPS)

Apart from being an actress, film producer and writer, Geena Davis is a leading advocate of equal gender portrayal in the entertainment media.

Courtesy of Geena Davis

In 2007, Davis launched the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, which has sponsored the largest research project to date on gender in children’s entertainment. Now, the Geena Davis Institute has partnered with UN Women, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, to undertake its first-ever global study to analyse the depiction of female characters in family films.

Davis believes that the media industry remains discriminatory in its portrayal of women simply because these stereotypes have remained the status quo for a very long time. After playing a power role as the first female U.S. president in “Commander in Chief” and seeing enthusiastic public reactions to the TV series, Davis is convinced that media’s limited portrayal of women can and must change.

IPS correspondent Lydia Lim spoke to Davis about the gender disparity in media images, as well as the entertainment media’s potential to better depict women’s empowerment.

Q: Women and girls are often depicted negatively on-screen due to gender stereotypes in the media. We’re now in the 21^st century: why is the media industry so behind on portraying gender equality?

A: My non-profit has looked at television and family films made in the United States, covering a 20-year span, and unfortunately, the percentage of female characters only went up 0.7 percent during those 20 years. That would mean we’d achieve [gender] parity in around 700 years.

So clearly, we need to become very proactive about improving the quantity and quality of female characters, especially in what children see. I had assumed that in the 21^st century, surely we were showing kids boys and girls sharing the sandbox equally.

My theory is that since the ratio of male to female characters has been exactly the same since 1946, pretty much everyone was raised seeing fictitious worlds with far fewer female characters than male characters, so much that it started to look normal. I think that’s probably why universally, people seem not to notice that there are far fewer female characters unless you point it out.

Q: What kind of effect does this negative depiction of women on-screen have on young girls?

A: We’re training children to see girls and women as not taking up half the space in the world, if this is the image that is reflected to them. And also, with the limited and negative portrayals of the female characters that are there, we’re teaching them that women and girls are not as important as men and boys.

They don’t do the important things; they don’t hold the important jobs; and very often, they’re not integral to the plot. We also found that the function of a female character in a film or a children’s television show is to serve as eye-candy, rather than having an occupation or aspiration.

Q: Does this gender disparity have to do with few women holding positions of power behind the scenes, such as in the roles of directors and screenwriters?

A: Definitely. Currently, female directors are at about seven percent, writers at about 13 percent and producers, 20 percent – which are all very low numbers. And we know from our research that if there’s a woman director, producer or writer, the percentage of female characters on screen goes up. So another way we can attack the problem is to increase the number of women behind the camera as well.

Q: In “Commander in Chief” (a U.S. television series in 2005), you portrayed the first female president of the United States. Were you satisfied that your character depicted women’s empowerment?

A: I was thrilled to do it. My first thought when I was offered the job was, what could be more iconic than that? And I had already been fortunate to play some parts that really resonated with women, so I relished the opportunity.

Unfortunately, my administration was very short – we only had one season of the show – but a group called Kaplan Thaler did a study after the show was on the air and found that people were 68 percent more likely to say they’d vote for a female candidate for president if they were familiar with the show.

Just by seeing my character behind the desk 19 times, it was enough to profoundly change a lot of people’s minds about the possibility of a female president.

Q: Are you confident that this global study under the partnership with UN Women will change the way people around the world perceive women?

A: I’m very excited about this first-ever global study of the depictions of female characters around the world. [By examining] the 10 top box-office grossing countries, we’ll look at character representations, what role they’re playing, and their physical depictions.

And we’re able to do this broad-reaching study because of the participation of UN Women and the Rockefeller Foundation. We think it will be very impactful, and I think this will be very valuable information for everyone and also critical to any NGOs conducting global programmes because of the profound influence media images and messages have on civic, cultural beliefs and behaviours.

Excerpt:

By Joan Erakit
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 4 2013 (IPS)

The fact that women are underrepresented in the media industry should surprise few. The severity of this imbalance and its consequences, however, are less obvious. In a new report, the Women’s Media Centre exposes these disparities and their effects on society.

The WMC‘s 2013 annual report on the Status of Women in the U.S. Media also suggested ways to tackle these imbalances, as the WMC itself aims to change the face of media through diversity and powerful content. The report was compiled by Diana Mitsu Klos, an executive media strategist.

Julie Burton, president of Women’s Media Centre, discusses the underrepresenation of women in media. Photo courtesy of WMC.

The report should serve as “a wake-up call to the media industry — and to consumers — that we are not seeing, hearing, or reading the whole story,” Julie Burton, president of the WMC told IPS. “It is time for a change.”

If the culture of democracy is to be protected, WMC believes that audiences need to understand the severity of this issue. An unequal representation of women in the fields of journalism, film and TV production, radio and even in obituaries curtails efforts to give audiences fair and diverse perspectives.

“Women often aren’t given the opportunity for those plum roles and positions because the tendency is for people in positions of power – generally men – to work with those they know,” Burton added.

To tackle this problem, WMC works to close a persistent gender gap by training women to become media ready, monitoring sexism and unfair media practices, as well as organising campaigns and petitions to keep those in power accountable.

Burton spoke with IPS correspondent Joan Erakit about the report’s findings as well as the challenges facing the media industry in 2013. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What is the relationship between diversifying media and building a healthy democracy?

A: We know women are more than half of the population, but in media, we don’t see or hear them in equal numbers to men. There is a crisis of representation for women. This also holds true for people of colour, who by 2050 will also be a majority in this country.

By deciding who gets to talk, the media defines the story for us. It also presents a picture of what our role is in society. We want media to tell the whole story — and everyone benefits from that. It is also a matter of credibility. Our media and society must fully represent everyone’s voices and contributions if we are to be a healthy democracy.

Q: When a woman graduates from college with a degree in journalism but does not follow up with a job in that field, what do you believe is happening? Are women being encouraged to apply for journalism positions?

A: The report shows that women are landing jobs in public relations and advertising, and that’s good news. But when it comes to newsroom positions, the challenge continues. Landing a job is not only just talent, but also, sometimes, who you know. Those contacts and networks matter. By deciding who gets to talk, the media defines the story for us. It also presents a picture of what our role is in society.

Our hope is that young women do not get too discouraged and continue to seek opportunities in journalism. In addition, it must be noted that the news industry as a whole is shrinking as more people get their news electronically. Yet women still continue to struggle to gain parity in online media platforms.

Q: Is our current media industry diverse and supportive of women?

A: Right now, 96 percent of all positions of clout in U.S. businesses, including media, are held by men. We can – and we must – do better. We’ve made progress, but there’s still much work to be done.

Media is one of the most powerful forces in our culture and in our economy. It tells us who we are and what we can be. We need to make sure that who defines our story, who tells the story, and what the story is about represent women and men equally.

Q: Do you think our society is built to take a man’s opinion more seriously than a woman’s? Is it a matter of credibility or preference?

A: This week we celebrated the release of the documentary “Makers – Women Who Make America”, which tells the story of how women have shaped America over the past 50 years and the visionary and revolutionary women who have led and written our collective history.

We have made progress, but we have a long way to go. The bad news when it comes to women and media is that even though we know women are more than half of the population, we don’t see or hear them in equal numbers to men. This holds for by-lines by gender and for sources quoted in stories, for women in front of the camera and behind the camera.

It took women 144 hard-fought years to obtain the right to vote. As Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” And men have held virtually all power in our society for a long time. That is changing, but too slowly. The Women’s Media Centre is working very hard to make the status quo one that values women’s and men’s voices equally.

Excerpt:

Zipporah Kittony (l) former chair of Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation, Justin Muturi (c) chair of the Centre For Multiparty Democracy, and Alice Wahome, vice-chair of the CMD (r) addressing journalists in Nairobi on Dec. 13. Credit: Brian Ngugi/IPS

By Brian Ngugi
NAIROBI , Dec 14 2012 (IPS)

Kenya’s rights activists are furious that the country’s highest court “violated” women’s constitutional rights by ruling against the implementation of a gender quota in parliament ahead of the 2013 general elections.

Activists here are threatening to boycott the Mar. 4, 2013 elections and bring the government to a standstill unless the gender parity law, which states that no more than two-thirds of one gender should hold elected office, is enforced in the senate and national assembly in the upcoming elections.

Rukia Subow, chair of Maendeleo Ya Wanawake Organisation, the largest women’s rights NGO in Kenya, told IPS that this East African nation was headed for a constitutional crisis if it failed to heed the provisions of the 2010 constitution.

The Kenya Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, Dec. 11 that the constitutional provision calling for a mandatory one-third gender representation would not apply to next year’s general election and instead should be implemented progressively by August 2015.

“We respect the Supreme Court, but still we have to fight its ruling even if it means going to higher courts in the region. We will ensure that there will be no parliament next year as it will be unconstitutional should we fail to implement the gender principle,” she said, adding that the organisation would see to it that the principle was implemented by “any means necessary.”

As the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, the next court of appeal would be the East African Court of Justice.

Article 81 (b) of the constitution provides that “not more than two-thirds of the members of elective public bodies shall be of the same gender.”

Further, Article 27(8) of the constitution states that there shall be legislation to provide for the above principle. But the failure of parliament to pass this legislation prompted the attorney general Githu Muigai to petition the Supreme Court for an interpretation on how the country should attain the gender equity principle.

In the landmark decision by four of the five judges hearing the case, Jackton Boma Ojwang, Njoki Ndung’u, Philip Tunoi and Smoking Wanjala ruled that the one-third gender requirement for the national assembly and senate could not be enforced in the 2013 elections.

They said that the historical marginalisation of women in elective politics could not be resolved by quotas but would only be realised over time and in stages.

The fifth judge on the bench, the country’s chief justice Willy Mutunga, ruled in favour of the principle being implemented ahead of the upcoming elections.

According to Rose Waruhiu, a prominent Kenyan women’s rights activist and former member of the East African Legislative Assembly, the ruling is a blow to the empowerment of women.

“The women of Kenya are seeing this as a blatant and direct violation of women’s constitutional rights of equality and non-discrimination based on sex. The ruling makes a charade of the whole idea of constitutionalism and is the ultimate insult to Kenyan women, women around the world, and in essence the Kenyan people,” Waruhiu told IPS.

The Centre for Multiparty Democracy Kenya has consequently advised political parties to immediately file a case with the East African Court of Justice, to force Kenya to observe gender equality in elective and appointive public positions.

According to the lobby’s chair, Justin Muturi, Kenya “is the only country within the East African community which has not (achieved) this.”

“We have resolved to sensitise Kenyans around the theme ‘no women, no elections on March 2013’, unless and until women are included in public office as stipulated in the constitution,” Muturi told IPS during a press conference in Nairobi on Thursday Dec. 13.

“The Supreme Court ruling effectively denied women their constitutional right to fair representation. We hold the view that the Supreme Court itself has failed to uphold the constitution and it is time the people who hold sovereign authority acted to stop further erosion of constitutional provisions,” added Muturi.

Meanwhile, Waruhiu said the court ruling was a fraudulent act.

“It has set women back in a big way. More importantly, however, it’s not a women’s issue, but an issue at the heart of our constitution. It’s about the affront to the sovereign will of the people,” said Waruhiu, who is also the vice chair of the Democratic Party of Kenya.

“Women of Kenya do not, and will not, accept a zero or minimalist approach in terms of the fulfilment of their constitutional rights. They are entitled to them as a matter of course, they fought for independence, and they continue to carry the greatest burden in building this nation,” she said.

Her comments were echoed by Winnie Lichuma, the chair of the National Gender and Equality Commission, the body charged with women’s empowerment in Kenya. She told IPS that women must demand that the principle be implemented immediately and not in stages.

“The gender equity principle on representation must be implemented now and can’t wait,” she said. Political representation for women in the current Kenyan parliament is considered low at only 9.8 percent, according to Lichuma.

Prior to the controversial ruling, the country was awash with heated debate about how the principle could be achieved.

Some legislators had said that it should not be implemented in the 2013 general elections. However, the attorney general and other observers had said that if the gender rule was not implemented, Kenya would head towards a constitutional crisis.

“This action by the highest court in the land of Kenya, if left uncorrected, would widen the inequality gap between men and women in leadership positions,” said Waruhiu.