Climate Change, Women’s Rights and National Action Plans in Africa
Pedi Obani*
The Human Rights Council called on states in 2014 to develop national action plans on business and human rights (NAPs) to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), outlining their commitments to protecting human rights against adverse impacts from business operations. Ten years later, 34 countries have produced a national action plan on business and human rights and at least 33 of those have provisions on gender or women’s rights. The urgent need to address adverse and disproportionate impacts of business operations on women is also a central aim of emerging legislations.
Whereas women are important players in the energy value chain, environmental management, and business supply chains in various industries, they often face unique challenges in the workplace, such as the gender pay gap, violence, limited access to resources and exclusion from opportunities. Other human security issues such as pollution, land grabbing, and violence against human rights defenders also disproportionately affect women. The challenges are even more complex in Africa, where decades of pre-existing gender-based exclusions, regulatory gaps, inequitable distribution of opportunities in the energy sector, and capacity gaps amongst others continue to replicate gender-based exclusions, and persist in the ongoing energy transition.
This piece reflects on how emerging NAPs across Africa address the gender impacts of business activities, the emerging good practices and recommendations for ensuring that no one is left behind. The human rights framework, and standards against the discrimination of women offer pathways for prioritising women’s protection and access to climate and environmental justice as part of the corporate due diligence process. It is imperative for NAPs on business and human rights standards to adopt a nuanced understanding of the multi-faceted intersections between women, climate change and human rights, beyond the vulnerabilities’ narrative.
Gender Discrimination and the Law
The need for reflecting gender perspectives and addressing the different risks that may be faced by women and men is arguably well established in key global, regional and national legislative and policy instruments. The International Bill of Rights clearly prohibit discrimination based on sex and provide a strong legal basis for advancing gender equality. The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 1979 (CEDAW) is dedicated to advancing women’s rights, particularly considering women in vulnerable situations, including those living in rural areas.
At the regional level, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa 2003 (The Maputo Protocol) recognises a range of women’s rights including cultural and environmental rights. The Maputo Protocol’s inclusion of environmental rights (Article 18(1)) could be pivotal in formulating climate policies especially considering that women are disproportionately affected by climate change impacts. The Maputo Protocol complements the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981). Article 18 of the African Charter calls on states to eliminate discrimination against women and to protect women’s rights in line with international declarations and conventions.
The right to freedom from discrimination is enshrined in most national constitutions, including prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex or gender. Some African constitutions also explicitly provide for affirmative action for women recognizing the structural nature of discrimination caused by a legacy of inequality.
The Lived Reality
Despite the plenitude of international and regional instruments on women’s rights, recent studies highlight how women across Africa and other parts of the world continue to face both direct climate vulnerabilities and indirect impacts relating to climate responses and business operations.
There are a variety of factors that result in women’s climate vulnerabilities in Africa. First, literacy and access to education are important to ensure one’s effective participation in the climate change governance process. In terms of access to climate justice, superior courts of records and various formal judicial and quasi-judicial systems are built on written laws. However, Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest youth literacy levels globally. Poorer families with limited resources are more likely to educate their sons while their daughters are left at home to carry out domestic chores. The resulting higher level of illiteracy among women compared to men poses a significant barrier to accessing information about most issues, including climate change data and other services, including finance. Women are mostly under-represented in the STEM subjects, which has implications for their earning capacity and engagement in the energy transition economy.
Second, poverty and lack of access to livelihood resources, rife among women-headed households, increases vulnerability to adverse climate change impacts. Third, gender norms including caring responsibilities, clothing which raises safety concerns in emergency situations and concerns over women’s safety, exposure to violence and cultural rights violations that are linked to environmental degradation or scarcity of natural resources.
Third is the lack of clear focus on women’s rights in emerging legislation and NAPs across Africa. Overall, the NAPs of the four African countries, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Uganda, provide for gender equality and women’s rights through highlighting discriminatory labour practices against women; identifying the vulnerabilities of women and (in)effectiveness of legislative and policy responses by States; and proposing strategies for improving gender equality outcomes. The emphasis is on vulnerabilities, with women’s rights being commonly placed next to disabilities and children’s rights.
NAPs: Half-Measures in the Right Direction?
Underlying the gender and women’s rights provisions of the existing NAPs of the sampled African countries are two common themes. One, a formal equality approach is expected to be effective for advancing women’s rights and equality with men within the existing governance structures. Two, women are presumed to suffer the negative externalities of the prevalent business practices and environmental degradation only.
Regarding the first assumption, looking at the emerging NAPs and the climate change laws of Kenya, Mauritius, Uganda and Nigeria, there are provisions for women or gender representation either through the relevant government ministry or other representative groups. Kenya also mentions the need for the national climate change council to set out procedures to ensure gender and intergenerational equity in access to monies from the Climate Change Fund. Some important limitations of the first presumption include the lack of broad-based participation of women in decision making including in the development and implementation of the NAPs, as well as transition policies, and lack of transparent data and statistical analysis on vulnerabilities of women to climate change and emerging energy transition policies. These often result in overly broad policies that do not address the root causes of gender inequality. Moreso, the predominant emphasis on equality of opportunities (such as the elimination of discriminatory practices against women and persons with disabilities at workplaces) does not account for other social norms and expectations (such as unpaid care work) which affect equality outcomes for women. Similarly, the second presumption does not address the need for a just transition for women who may have built an alternative economy based on the current structures, for instance through circular economy initiatives converting plastic waste to wealth or unhealthy practices such as the drying of food using the heat from gas flares.
It is important for NAPs and other policy and legislative responses to climate change and environmental rights violations to adopt an intersectional approach in outlining gender and women’s rights issues. An intersectional approach recognises that no two women are in the exact same situation. Often, each additional social and political identity often results in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. This means that each woman’s experience of climate change and human rights violations would be different, and likely worsened by additional identities that increase vulnerability. Therefore, beyond recognising women’s’ vulnerabilities, NAPs and other relevant policies and laws must interrogate women’s dependencies, priorities, and agency in the current development context.
The following are three practical steps that States can take in formulating provisions in their NAPs and other policy and legislative responses for achieving the much-needed shift in the discourse from women’s vulnerabilities to their potential and capabilities. One, mainstream the role of State agencies in charge of women affairs and gender equality and women’s social movements in relation to awareness raising, capacity building for businesses and other key actors, and driving policy and legislative reforms for advancing women’s interests. Resources should be provided to ensure that the women and relevant agencies can effectively play their role. Two, offer stop-gap measures and just transition pathways for women who are dependent on the negative externalities of business operations for their livelihoods. Third, incentivise business practices that promote work life balance for women while also introducing measures to reduce women’s burden of unpaid care work.
* Pedi Obani PhD, FHEA, is an Associate Professor of Law and a Future Leaders Fellow at University of Bradford. She specializes in research, academic programme design, research and policy advisory on climate change governance, just transition, gender equality and the human rights to water and sanitation. Pedi obtained her PhD from the University of Amsterdam.
Views expressed on Harvard Human Rights Reflections are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of the Human Rights Program or Harvard Law School.
