Women, youth and Rio
The news doesn’t look too good in faraway Rio de Janeiro, where the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, better known as “Rio+20,” revisits the commitments governments made 20 years ago on safeguarding the environment and making sure that all development is “sustainable.”
The UN says the objective of the conference is “to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and address new and emerging challenges.”
But as things stand, at least according to colleagues in nongovernment organizations attending the meet, the negotiations are threatening to take world governments backward, instead of forward, in addressing the growing crisis of a world increasingly challenged by, among other factors, population growth.
Delegates opposed to the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights, led by the Holy See, are reportedly pushing for the removal of all references to young people and to reproductive rights in the outcome document of Rio+20. They are also calling into question links being made between women (and women’s rights) and sustainable development.
I find these objections odd, to say the least. What for are government representatives meeting in Rio if not to ensure that young people of today (and those yet to be born) enjoy the same (if not better) quality of life in the future? It is for them that such conferences are being held, and removing any mention of them in outcome documents would be silly, if not unjust.
And women? What are the world’s women if not the primary promoters and managers of sustainable development? Aren’t women household and community managers who decide how natural resources are to be used and managed at the most basic level of human existence? And is it not women’s fertility—and the management of it— that determines whether we shall live in a sustainable world, or one in which populations are constantly struggling for even the most basic sustenance?
* * *
Anyway, things look “very bad” at this stage of the conference, say NGO observers. G-77, composed mostly of governments from developing countries (including the Philippines), has proposed to remove references to young people in a passage that affirms governments’ commitment to gender equality and protecting the rights of “women, men and youth” to have control over and “decide freely and responsibly” on matters regarding their sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health.
Negotiations are underway, I understand, between the G-77 and the European Union delegations on alternative language, although NGO and youth observers are adamant in their demand to let “youth” remain in the document.
Observers say the Holy See, Russia, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Chile, Syria, Egypt, and Costa Rica all spoke out against including reproductive rights in the disputed paragraph, “not only questioning reproductive rights but the relationship of women with sustainable development.”
Other delegations—Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, the United States and Iceland—spoke out in support of retaining the reference to “reproductive rights” in the same paragraph, arguing that this is “crucial” to sustainable development.
* * *
Those opposing any mention of sexual and reproductive rights in a document on sustainable development (duh) argued that they couldn’t see any connection between the two issues, and that “reproductive rights” goes against national legislation and constitutions (apparently, such rights are outlawed in Honduras and Nicaragua). They also argued that “reproductive rights” is just a code word for abortion (another duh) and they have to protect the rights of the unborn and the right to life.
The delegates who spoke out in support of retaining references to reproductive and sexual rights, according to reports, said these rights are “key to women’s empowerment and their ability to participate in sustainable development.” The delegates also reinforced the link between sustainable development and women’s rights and gender equality.
Delegates from and outside government are seeking support from, among others, the Philippine delegation. “The major problem is that no one from Africa or Asia has spoken up yet in favor” of the disputed paragraph, they say, even if G-77 has agreed to let individual delegations speak up on the issue. NGOs here say they are counting on certain “supportive” members of the Philippine delegation to firmly and loudly express support for the inclusion of young people in the outcome document, as well as for upholding the principles of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the entire outcome document of Rio+20. It would also help if they get clear and decisive signals from government, starting with P-Noy, to take a principled stand and commit to the health of young people and women—and men and children—if we are to live in a world that is both sustainable and healthy.
* * *
SOROPTIMISTS International Philippines, a 46-year-old organization of socially aware and engaged women, is observing this year the centenary of its founding president, Mariquita S. Castelo. To mark the occasion, the SI Philippines Region headed by Gov. Minda A. Garcia is launching the Mariquita S. Castelo Leadership Award, which will honor an outstanding Soroptimist who embodies the ideals of leadership, community involvement and service, and comes with a P50,000 cash award.
