Environmental leadership has the face of a woman
by Liliana Jáuregui
In the image above, we see a table headed by former Bolivian president Evo Morales, discussing with Agro Cruceño, from the region of Santa Cruz, how to promote meat exports to the Chinese market (an agreement that he himself facilitated during his government) and the use of so-called biotechnology, which in reality is the use of modified seeds or GMO for food production. These are two controversial issues, because of the responsibility for deforestation, especially in the Chiquitano forest region, and because GMOs are prohibited in Bolivia and are controversial due to their impact on traditional crops and food security. Agribusinesses, and meat producers in particular, were behind devastating fires in the Amazon in 2019, and this memorable moment was the cover photo of a Santa Cruz regional paper. Outside the building, as in the streets of Santa Cruz, there were tireless protests against these meetings, hoping to force the government to make serious commitments to stop the fires.
Looking at the photographs, there is something that stands out: 100% of the people at the business table are men and the protesters outside are mostly women. Such a stark gender divide begs important questions: How did we get here? Why are men dominating the board rooms where nature is signed away while women rise up in the streets? What does this image tell us about gender inequality and our global environmental crisis? And — perhaps most importantly — what might this mean for solutions to our environmental problems?
The extractivist model has been a common denominator in the Latin American region and in many new economies. The demand for raw materials increases without measure and the pressure on natural areas increases proportionately. This translates into land dispossession, exposure of indigenous groups in voluntary isolation and other human rights abuses. In the face of this, it has been women who have organized themselves and have mounted a sometimes invisible battle against these political and economic powers.
The relationships between women and their territories are different from the relationships men have with their territories. As Saumya Kalia writes in “Why Women Activists Never Get Their Due Despite Being Critical to Nature Conservation”:
They bear the primary responsibility of keeping the fire burning, feeding the family, fetching water, and collecting forest materials for sale. The natural ecosystem and its life-preserving rewards become an extension of the female identity.
I have spent most of my professional career working to protect biodiversity. This work is closely connected to social development, access to resources, income-generating activities, food, and essential household products. Women and men use and manage natural resources in different ways and have differentiated knowledge about them. For example, I recently learned that women and men are able to identify different species and their usefulness in household health, income generation and food security. Globally, women’s forest knowledge tends to be more linked to household, health and food consumption. Men’s knowledge is generally associated with commercial uses and thereby compensated monetarily. In watersheds, women are key players in managing natural resources, contributing to household food security and sanitation. However, existing power structures, time constraints and lower educational levels often lead women to be less directly engaged in decision-making processes. As a consequence, they tend to be excluded from local governance, which limits their access to resources and sometimes leaves their voices unheard. It is within this context that new ideas have arisen from a feminine view of our economies, such as, for example, an economy based on the management of common goods that guarantees the daily reproduction of life.
But exclusion of decision making doesn’t only occur in local communities. According to reports produced by the extractive industry itself, women have a very small labor participation in this sector. Only 8% of the executive committee members of major extractive companies are women. Mining is the worst sector in terms of gender diversity — worse than the oil and gas industry — with only 5% of board seats in the top 500 mining companies. The problem of women’s participation in decision making is a structural issue in our society.
Going back to my field work, my wise Bolivian colleague and friend Pablo once caught my attention by saying two things: “Do not take the women activists out of their territories to go around the world. They are needed in their territories.” (I told him: “noted”). Then he continued: “But above all, do not take them out now. When they are committed to their cause there is nothing to stop them, forces against them know this and are worried.” He wanted to underline what is clear for a group of organizations working with environmental human rights defenders. The frontline of the defense is occupied mainly by women and they are less interested in economic compensation, which is generally used to force communities to abandon their territories. Berta Cáceres is one of the many faces: the Goldman Prize winner was a Honduran Lenca indigenous leader who fought against the Aqua Zarca hydrological project and was murdered on March 2, 2016. Since her death, the concept of environmental defenders has gained relevance and as recently as June 2022 one of the intellectual authors of her assassination has been sentenced to 22 years in prison.
The image that most have of the ‘brave activist’ is not one of women on the frontline, but it is a reality. Environmental activism has been historically linked to women’s movements. One of the most well-known women-led environmental movements is the Indian Chipko movement of the 1970’s. During the celebration of raksha bandhan, when sisters traditionally tie wrist bands called rakhis around the wrists of their brothers, a group of women tied red rakhis to the trees. The rakhis symbolized preserving this bond with mother’s home. Initiated by this strong symbolic measure, they stood up and peacefully confronted those responsible for the destruction of their livelihoods, homes and identities. In the 1960s, India was losing around 1.3 million hectares of forest every year. Gaura Devi was one of the key figures who led the groups to stop the destruction of the Uttarakhand forest. She confronted the loggers with a shawl tied to her head and her saree’s pallu, tucked to her waist. Another female activist, Amrita Devi and her daughters preceded the Chipko in the 1730s when over 300 members of the Bishnoi tribe in Rajasthan were beheaded as they hugged trees to protest against the cutting down of khejri trees. In our times, Greta Thunberg has become an icon in the fight against climate change.
Gender equality can be a game changer
The new Chilean constitution is seen as a feminist victory both by the movement of women combating feminicidios (killings of women) and the groups pushing for more women in higher political positions. Now is the first time in history that a constitution is written with an equivalent number of men and women and Elisa Loncón, an indigenous woman, is the president of the Chilean Constituent Assembly. The constitution has been drafted and will be presented for approval by referendum in the coming months.
This despertar (awakening) is the new banner of equal rights and inclusion worldwide. Different from the meat deal I mentioned earlier, this process secures an equal number of seats at the table for women and a stronger voice for the feminine. Increasing the diversity of voices at the table allows the community to have more ownership over the solutions, thus sustaining a real grassroots movement. This success can serve as an example of a structural solution to solve structural problems like the climate crisis, ensuring greater balance between economic development and our environment, distribution of wealth, inclusion and violence against women.
Women’s leadership and increasing women’s participation is an effective way to achieve structural changes in our social and economic models. The case of Caroline Dennet is exemplary and very symbolic for this analysis. This woman with extensive experience in the fossil energy industry, after 11 years of working for Shell, decided to leave her position because of Shell’s “double-talk on climate”. “I can no longer work for a company that ignores all the alarms and dismisses the risks of climate change and ecological collapse,” said Dennet, leading by example, looking at the long term collective interest and taking responsibility. It seems very obvious that our leaders must meet these criteria when making decisions, yet it is a woman who comes out with this message in this way, despite being such a small group in the economic sector that has one of the largest responsibilities for the effects of climate change.
With this review of women who have initiated environmental movements I would like to suggest that we should continue this trend of inclusion: women (and hopefully also youth and other minorities) should participate in the development of social instruments and decision making. And not only in symbolic positions such as chairpersons or directors, but at all levels of governance — technical, middle and top management — especially in change-averse sectors such as the fossil energy industry or financial institutions.
About the series:
The Fossil Endgame blog series is organized by the Leave it in the Ground Initiative (LINGO) in collaboration with the Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA) and supported by the Dutch Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN NL).
RTA provides evidence-based hope for a warming world. A rapid economic transition, including widespread behaviour change to sustainable lifestyles, is necessary to live within planetary ecological boundaries and to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees. We gather, share and demonstrate evidence of what is already possible to remove excuses for inaction and show ways ahead.
LINGO works on speeding up the energy transition to 100% renewables, both by supporting frontline struggles against fossil fuel projects and by pushing forward game-changing approaches that can end fossils in years, not decades.
