Gender equality and related international frameworks

Gender equality is an important concept in the context of sustainable, people-centred development. Indeed, gender equality is a fundamental human right, a stand-alone sustainable development goal (SDG 5), and a precondition for achieving all other SDGs. 

Specifically, as defined by the United Nations, gender equality refers to the equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women and men and girls and boys. It is important to note though that equality does not mean that women and men will become the same; equality rather means that women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities, and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Thus, gender equality implies that the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are taken into consideration, while still recognizing the diversity of different groups of women and men. Further, it is critical to understand that gender equality is not a women’s issue but should concern and fully engage men as well as women (source). 
 

Multiple global frameworks exist on gender equality that also intend to guide policy making at the regional, national, and local levels. Of particular relevance in this context are the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA). CEDAW is commonly considered as an international bill of rights for women, while the BPfA is understood as the most progressive blueprint for advancing women's rights up to this date. Both frameworks include important references to gender and policy making: they highlight the need for women’s participation in policy formulation and implementation, and for policies to foster the empowerment and advancement of women. 

Specifically in relation to SAPs, the Annex to the BPfA acknowledges that SAPs have in many cases “not been designed to minimize their negative effects on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups or on women, nor have they been designed to assure positive effects on those groups by preventing their marginalization in economic and social activities” (source). The BPfA then documents the actions that can be taken to mainstream gender into SAPs by Governments (Articles 58 and 175), national and international non-governmental organizations and women's groups (Article 60), national and international statistical organizations (Article 68), and by central banks, national development banks, and private banking institutions as appropriate (Article 67).

The interconnection of human security and gender equality

Human security is another concept of relevance in the context of sustainable development. It goes beyond the absence of conflict and centres on the security of individuals. Broadly understood, it captures a very wide range of areas related to individuals' well-being and safety, including for example food security and health. Furthermore, human security is an approach to assist countries in identifying and addressing widespread and crosscutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people. Specifically, such an approach calls for “people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and prevention-oriented responses that strengthen the protection and empowerment of all people.”

Both concepts – gender equality and human security – are strongly interlinked in that human security can only be fully achieved if gender is taken into account: “There can be no improvement in human security without addressing as a major – if not first – priority the issue of ‘lost opportunities’ and ‘foregone achievement’ that result from deep gender inequality and insufficient progress in the empowerment of women” (source). This also aligns with the broader scope of the SDG agenda, which aims at enhancing resilience and pursuing goals comprehensively and holistically. 
 

Why integrating gender equality and human security into SAPs is important

Gender equality and human security are both strongly linked with SAPs and the policy reforms they require. Given existing inequalities in societies and traditional practices, such as the gendered division of labour between women and men, with the majority of the care responsibilities falling on (e.g., caring for children, housework – unpaid work) and making up the bulk of the informal workforce, and men representing a higher proportion of those engaged in remunerative tasks (e.g., earning an income) through formal employment, it is clear that changes in economic conditions and related policies will have different impacts on men and women. 
 

As noted in the previous section, SAPs have the potential to impact different segments of society in different ways, and the widespread assumption that SAPs are gender neutral (i.e., affect individuals of all sexes and gender identities equally) rarely ever holds. Indeed, how SAPs impact societies strongly depends on the gender relations in the given context: 

Think, for example, of the potential impacts if meeting fiscal targets requires a reduction of support to social services, such as government health expenditures. Due to the traditional gendered division of labour between women and men that prevails in many societies around the globe, caring for sick children and household members continues to fall primarily on women. Therefore, a decrease in the quantity and quality of health care services to people typically leads to an increase in women’s workload. Furthermore, such cuts may affect the healthcare workforce and result in fewer positions (source). Given that in many places women make up the majority of health care workers, this affects them disproportionately.     

A more specific example comes directly from the agricultural sectors of Caribbean countries: a recent review revealed significant declines in most of the important development indicators during the period of support provided under the various SAPs to Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia. Furthermore, the review showed that SAPs impacted women as well as smallholder farmers and fisher-folk more negatively than larger farmers, as many lacked equal opportunities to enter and benefit within liberalized markets. Key barriers that lead to this outcome include their limited access to resources (e.g., land, labour, and capital) to invest in business opportunities that may be derived from the implementation of SAPs; limited access to education and technical knowledge for diversification and/or expansion in the viable value chains; and limited access to available credit to purchase necessary inputs which have become more expensive over time (source).

The above examples show that while gender inequalities typically exist prior to the implementation of SAPs, insufficient consideration of gender and the roles and responsibilities ascribed to or imposed upon women and men in the design and implementation of these programs has the potential to exacerbate these inequalities with women bearing the brunt. This, in turn, is bad for the economy, as gender gaps negatively affect competitiveness by restraining productivity, growth, and output, and indirectly hinder trade performance (source).  

Although decision makers rarely intend to actively discriminate against women (or men), the above examples also show that up to this date, many SAPs, including those implemented in the Caribbean, do not take gender into account, which can have similar consequences as those described. There are many reasons for this, with a lack of sex-disaggregated data and limited awareness of women and men’s distinct lived experiences being typical causes. Furthermore, many policy makers are still not fully aware of the linkages between economic development and gender and the importance of integrating gender equality and human security into SAPs – both of which constitute a major barrier. 

SAPs can exacerbate gender inequalities, but it is also well known that gender equality and economic growth – which is at the center of SAPs – are strongly correlated both across countries and over time (source). Generally, structural adjustment has the potential to contribute positively to women’s lives and provides entry points for empowerment, such as women’s increased participation in market-oriented activities. 
 
Factors towards achieving more gender-responsive structural adjustment – meaning reforms that better respond to women and men’s distinct realities – are manifold and among others encompass the branches of data collection and usage, policy and planning, finance, trade, land reform, employment, poverty reduction, and education and training. 

Three important measures that you as a decision-maker can apply right away are: 
 

• Collect and use sex-disaggregated data: Typically, the required sex-disaggregated baseline data for gender-responsive reforms are missing (source). It is important to ensure that relevant quantitative and qualitative data are collected in sex-disaggregated format and used as the basis for policy formulation. For example, undertake research on the participation of women and men in the informal sector to inform strategies to either include these enterprises in the formal economy or to formalize the respective informal sectors/areas. 
• Ensure women and men’s participation: In the past, there was a lack of participation in the design of policies by the people most affected by them, which is an issue of great concern (source). It is important to ensure that women and men actively participate in policy-making processes and implementation as well as the design of reforms. This is also the case for important stakeholders, such as local women’s groups and civil society organizations working on gender. 
• Apply inclusive language: When you communicate – and this includes the written formulation of policies and reforms – use inclusive language. This means to use non-discriminatory vocabulary; to make gender visible when it is relevant for communication; and to not make gender visible when it is not relevant for communication. 

 
Furthermore, as parliamentarians and policymakers, you may use your close connections to the local population and communities to bridge the gap between the realities of women and men on the ground and high-level government procedures: talking to people, hearing their stories, needs, and concerns will help you a great deal in advocating for and formulating gender-responsive policies. In the context of the agricultural sector, this includes, for example, connecting with both women and men and asking them explicitly about their roles and responsibility in value chains, if they can freely access land, financial capital, information on technology and markets, and what the distinct challenges are they may face. Such data and information strengthen the evidence base and facilitate tailored planning.