Five ways in which the Rio+20 Summit failed women:

1. Women’s Reproductive Rights:

The summit’s final outcome document outlines the need to provide all women with access to family planning, but fails to address this as a reproductive right. Unfortunately, this sets back women’s rights by almost 20 years, since the ICPD Program for Action, acknowledged women’s reproductive rights as human rights in 1994.

Unfortunately, the UN Women’s call to action mirrored this ambiguity in its statement:

“The future women want is a world that is healthy, free from hunger, fear, violence and poverty; a world that prioritises equity, human rights and gender equality, where women and men, girls and boys have equal rights and opportunities and equal access to resources, education, healthcare, employment, leadership and decisionmaking, a world where women constitute a dynamic force for realising the benefits of sustainable development for present and future generations.”

Feminists groups and world leaders have criticized both statements. Women’s Major Group has called upon governments to reaffirm their commitments to gender rights and reproductive rights in preparation for ICPD +20 in 2014, and other international conventions.

Hilary Clinton has promised that positive steps will be taken in the U.S. But the future of reproductive rights might be bleak for America and the world if the Republicans win in coming elections, and vote for conservative policies regarding family planning and abortion.

2. Women’s Right to Land, property and inheritance:

The final outcome made only vague statements on women’s rights to land, property and inheritance, and has been condemned for being “utterly foolish” by the Women’s Major Group.

Women make for almost have the world’s population, and keeping them from inheriting land, and failing to empower them financially, makes for a bleak economic future. Women also produce almost 80% of the world’s food, but have no rights over the farming land, and therefore are subjected to hunger and poverty. Several women die of malnutrition and ill health every year, but Rio+20 has not outlined the need for women to access land, and control natural resources.

3. Women’s Right to a Healthy Environment:

Rio+20’s final outcome said nothing specific on the impact of environmental pollutants on the health of women. A lot of women work jobs which carry the risk of exposure to nuclear and radioactive elements. Their effect on women’s health can be devastating particularly in terms of increase in cancers. Rio+20 also omits the connection between climate change and women’s health, whereas changing weather patterns, the lack of rainfall, the disappearing coastlines and other issues affect the quality of women in such areas.
Both these issues need to be addressed separately from their effect on the health of men because of the small funds allocated to women’s health in several countries.

4. Women and Green Economy:

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) points out that the so-called green economy clauses have only portrayed women as recipients of welfare, or as laborers, but has not acknowledged their economic, cultural and social rights in these regards, or recognized their appeals for “no-go-zones” for mining, agrofuel and forestry companies. Women have also been refused control over water resources, and the document is vague about the appeal against privatizing water supply.

5. No Mention of Safe Abortions:

Several conservative regimes played an important role in the omission of the clause on reproductive rights. This is particularly disconcerting for organizations that support safe abortions. Conservative laws often curtail rights to safe abortions because of traditional views on motherhood, and the unfortunate role of religions in conferring personhood on a young fetus. The summit’s report does not address this bias as a reproductive, ethical or medical issue. By overlooking the need for safe abortions, the document does not protect the rights of millions of women who are driven to seek unsafe methods for the lack of comprehensive care in their countries.

Read the Entire Review by DAWN
Read the Entire Review by Women’s Major Group (representing 200 civil societies)