Presented by Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti

1. Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti – j.sarmiento@cgiar.org
Center for International Forestry Research
FROM DOING NO HARM TO DOING
BETTER
GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE RIGHTS-BASED APPROACHES FOR
SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES

3. Rights-based approaches (RBAs)
Sustainable and just landscapes, promoting
effectiveness through respect for/protection of
IP/LC’s rights & awareness of injustice
Concerned with relationship between rights-
holders and duty bearers (those responsible for
respecting, protecting and/or realizing rights)
Respect abstention from in/directly
violating/interfering with pursuit/enjoyment of
guaranteed rights.
Protection ensuring observance of rights via
monitoring, investigation and enforcement
Gained increased prominence in
dev/conservation over past decade
Action following recognised links between
environmental degradation, implementation
of initiatives and rights fulfilment/violation
Women more exposed to environmental
risks due to existing gender discrimination,
inequality and inhibiting gender roles
.

4. Progress
• Recognition of and attention to the rights of
IP/LCs in international agreements and
national legal systems (more to be done)
• Gender equality and women’s rights are
enshrined in different global conventions
• Progress toward/gaps remaining for gender-
sensitive climate policy (UNFCCC )
1948
1989
2007
2015
2010
https://genderclimatetracker.org/gender-mandates

5. Gender in UNFCCC Decisions
• Progress toward/gaps remaining for gender-sensitive
climate policy
• 28/59 decisions that reference gender explicitly refer only to gender balance
(e.g. enhancing women’s participation)
• 12/59 recognize need for gender balance and gender-mainstreaming
• 16 decisions in Adaptation integrate gender references; 0 in Agriculture
https://genderclimatetracker.org/gender-mandates

6. Then, what’s the problem?
• Access gap = injustice (can people benefit from
guaranteed rights?)
- Cross-cutting, greater impact on women and
exacerbates inequalities
• RBA depends on national legal frameworks built on
histories of interactions between states and IP/LCs
• Opportunity Transformative initiatives to ensure
access and re-engage with IP/LCs as rights-holders
1948
1989
2007
2015
2010

7. THREE TAKES ON GENDER IN RIGHTS APPROACHES
Gender blind
‘they are all
equal’
• Problems = poverty
• Initiatives often rely on ‘free’ women’s labour
• Gendered preferences regarding benefits are
not considered
• With time, decreases women’s willingness to
participate
• Exacerbates gender inequalities

8. THREE TAKES ON GENDER IN RIGHTS APPROACHES
Safeguards
‘do no
harm’
• Assumption that women’s participation will
automatically lead to equity (benefits) and
improve project effectiveness and efficiency
• Focuses on immediate negatives impacts
and risks, not structural causes of injustice
• Underlying inequalities are left unaddressed

9. THREE TAKES ON GENDER IN RIGHTS APPROACHES
Gender-
transform
ative
‘do better’
• Gender equity at core rather than as ‘means to an end’
• Closing the access gap for men and women (thinking of
intersectionality of experiences)
• Re-engage with indigenous men and women as rights-
holders
• Equal voice and influence, equitable distribution of
costs/benefits, equal access to compensation and
grievance mechanisms
• Adaptive learning and monitoring (process NOT goal)

10. Challenges
• Will (government, private sector, implementors,
men in grassroots organizations and local
communities, etc.)
• May take a long time (to understand local gender
dynamics, change the status quo, recognize and
coordinate stakeholders, etc.)
• What/whose rights?
• Who should respect/protect/enhance rights?
• International standards or national legal systems?

11. Discussion Questions
• How do you/have you experienced the access gap (personally or in
your work with IP/LCs)?
• What prevents you or the communities you work with from enjoying
your/their full rights?
• Who should be supporting IP/LCs to close the gap?
• Visioning – what would a gender-transformative RBA look like?