“It is the 21st century…”
This phrase often marks the beginning of heated debates and discourse around how much things have changed and ironically also about why things should be different. To me, it symbolises how young girls and women still must fight for their voices to be heard… despite it being the 21st century. While there has been progress made in breaking down stereotypical ideas that “girls should stay quiet” and “men should decide”, it seems superficial. A deeper analysis of formal decision-making processes, and also our daily lives as women, shows that such notions still exist at the root of our society.
Just look at our parliament. The previous Morrison ministry used to have the ‘highest number [eight] and percentage [33%] of women in Cabinet to date.’ [1] During the recent 2022 Federal Election, there were a record number of women who successfully ran for election. [2] In the Albanese ministry, there will now be a record number of 10 women in a 23 member cabinet. [3] In the words of our new Prime Minister, ‘we are making progress’. [4] While this may be true, I think the reactions of Australians and the media are more telling. On the Today Show following the election, a fellow panellist said – quite arrogantly – to Miss Universe Australia 2022, Maria Thattil, that ‘it feels pretty good to see more women than ever taking up top jobs huh?’ [5] To which she responded, ‘woah, well [women are] taking their rightful space up where the top jobs are…’ and spoke about how women are underrepresented in decision-making spheres. [6]
There has been progress. This is undeniable, but the reactions and subtle behaviours of the public reveal a sheen of reluctance. Women often feel the need to justify why we should be included, why more representation is good and why our issues are important. These notions are also prevalent in decision-making when it comes to the sphere of environmental law.
Claudia Ituarte-Lima’s discussion of the Stockholm Declaration which ‘sowed the seeds for the growth of transnational environmental law’ further encapsulates these notions. [7] The Declaration does not refer to women or any other groups. Rather than using gender-neutral language, it only refers to men; every gender is referred to as ‘man’. Ituarte-Lima specifically referred to principle 1 of the Declaration which states:
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. [8]
She also discussed how this occurred even though women such as the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, played a major role in the drafting process. It took 20 years for the vital role of women to be formally recognised in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. Irene Dankelman, former Women’s Environment & Development Organisation (WEDO) Board Chair wrote about her experience leading up to the summit. She mentioned many other female pioneers alongside whom she shared the ‘cellars of the UN building in New York’ to discuss policies, interventions and strategies. [9] They developed the Women’s Action Agenda for a Healthy Planet ‘to ensure that delegations were gender balanced, and to build a network of women acting on environment and development.’ [10] Thousands of women took part in meetings in NGO forums, and were not only persistent, but visible, in some meetings. [11] This allowed WEDO and its partnering organisations to leave the summit with principle 20 of the Rio Declaration, which states:
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development. [12]
Over the following years, many more conventions and treaties actioned gender equality within the environmental policy-making sphere. This included the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), Beijing+25 Declaration (2020) and more. [13]
According to Richard Marlin, ‘Australia was a keen participant at the Rio conference.’ [14] This is exemplified through Australia’s Submission to the Rio+20 Compilation Document, which set out our main priorities. The three overarching priorities were to:
Enable development of resilient and sustainable economies;
Address cross cutting sustainable development issues including continuing to empower women and;
Improving the institutional framework to support and drive sustainable development. [15]
The report said ‘Australia supports efforts to promote gender equality and empower women.’ [16] It noted if women cannot contribute to discussions surrounding the environment and its surrounding laws, then the debate and actions around such issues would be skewed. The report's eight recommendations in regards to how women can be included show Australia’s support for principles such as principle 20 of the Declaration. [17] My research did not reveal whether Australia actually ratified the Rio Declaration. Instead I kept circling back to the conclusion that the Rio Declaration is a “declaration of principles”; a type of “soft law” which is only meant to act as a guiding document.
Nonetheless, according to the Law Council of Australia, we have signed and ratified seven key international human rights treaties including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW. [18] From our eager contributions and suggestions in Australia’s submission to the Rio+20 Compilation Document and the ratification of treaties supporting women, I think I can proudly conclude that like international legal systems, Australia has also come far.
That is not to say that we do not have more work to do. In Australia, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and Indigenous women in particular, are still disadvantaged. The article, The Impact of Environmental Law on Indigenous Women in Australia, discusses how we embrace Aboriginal practices such as burning to reduce bushfire risk, but ignore their ‘cultural dimensions’. [19] It also discusses how Professor Graeme Samuel recommended that rather than prioritising Western science acts like the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), we should encourage more Indigenous engagement and adopt more of their practices. So while we have come a long way in regards to women, we fail to acknowledge and respect First Nations peoples; the traditional owners of the land we stand on today. This especially applies to Indigenous women such as Queensland’s first all-women Aboriginal ranger crew in the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation. [20] Initiatives carried out by such groups, and particularly those by Indigenous women, are integral to environmental protection in Australia. Even here we still have a long way to go…
Despite all the progress since 1972 when the Stockholm Declaration was first created, the Asian Development Bank’s 2021 Report referred to how ‘too often, laws and policies on climate change and disasters fail to include women, and when they do, they are described as a vulnerable group or recognized only in relation to women’s reproductive role.’ [21]
Evidently, while there has been progress made, albeit very slowly, we still have a long way to go. My question is, will we have to wait till the 22nd century?
[1] Anna Hough, ‘Trends in the gender composition of ministries’, Parliament of Australia (Web Page, 2 May 2022 <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2022/May/Trends_in_the_gender_composition_of_ministries>.
[2] James Massola, ‘Record number of women in Albanese’s first cabinet’, Sydney Morning Herald (online at 31 May 2022) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/record-number-of-women-in-albanese-s-first-cabinet-20220531-p5apwd.html>.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] @mariathattil, ‘Latest segment on The Today Show - we talked about how Australia’s new government has a record number of women in the ministry’ (TikTok, 1 June 2020, AEST) <https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSdo3G3wQ/?k=1>.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Claudia Ituarte-Lima, ‘Women’s rights in environmental law, from 1972 to today’, China Dialogue (Web Page, 28 December 2021) <https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/womens-rights-in-environmental-law-from-1972-to-today/>.
[8] Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc A/Conf. 48/14/Rev. 1 (25 July 1995).
[9] Ituarte-Lima (n 7).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/Conf. 151/26/Rev. 1(Vol. 1) (3-14 June 1992).
[13] Asian Development Bank, ‘Gender-Inclusive Legislative Framework and Laws to Strengthen Women’s Resilience to Climate Change and Disasters’, Relief Web by OCHA Services (Web Page, 27 December 2021) <https://reliefweb.int/report/world/gender-inclusive-legislative-framework-and-laws-strengthen-women-s-resilience-climate>.
[14] Australian Government, Australia’s Submission to the Rio+20 Compilation Document (Report).
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid 13.
[18] Law Council of Australia, ‘Policy Agenda’, Australia’s International Human Rights Obligations (Web Page) <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/policy-agenda/human-rights/australias-international-human-rights-obligations).
[19] President Fleur Kingham, ‘The Impact of Environmental Law on Indigenous Women in Australia' (Speech, IAWJ Biennial Conference).
[20] Ibid.
[21] Asian Development Bank (n 13).
Written by Muskan Chowdhury and edited by Dayeon Seo