Ecofeminism in the 21st Century

Ecofeminism in the Twenty-First Century. by Susan Buckingham Introduction Since 'ecofeminism ' was developed as a concept in the 1970s (1), there have been, arguably, major policy shifts in the fields of gender (in)equality and environmental sustainability. Thus a consideration of the achievements of, and work outstanding for, ecological feminism is warranted. In this paper, I will assess the changing policy landscape to explore the extent to which this has structurally altered gender inequalities and societies ' treatment of the environment, and the imbrication of these two processes. In order to do so, I will look at the rising profile of gender mainstreaming at the international, European Union (2) and European national level; the application of the 'feminism ' debate to environmental concerns; and the shifting of the 'radical edge ' of ecofeminism, to explore future possible trajectories (see, for example, Plumwood 2003; Seager 2003). To some extent, I will suggest that the transformation of policy and development rhetoric to include gender, as distinct from women 's issues (itself, arguably, a 'post-feminist ' dilution of women 's equality), masks a fundamental attachment to 'business-as-usual ', where social roles, pay differentials, political representation and environmental degradation remain little changed. However, there is, I argue, sufficient evidence to identify the influence of ecofeminist thinking on major policy initiatives concerning the relationship between women, men and environment at a variety of scales. The central question of this paper, then, is whether ecofeminism (as a distinct discourse, or as an amalgam of feminism and environmentalism constructed in different times and places in different ways) has changed the way in which Western society articulates the relationship between men, women and the environment. This, of course, is a problematic and speculative exercise and will follow from an analysis of how discourse and practice themselves have changed. This paper will consider key changes to gender equality as it is linked to environmental sustainability, and explore how women 's/feminists ' interests have helped to shape the environmental debate in the past decade. I will try to unpick dominant discourses which, on the one hand, are beginning to 'naturalize ' (some would say neutralize) environmental concerns (where the terms sustainable development and environmental sustainability are common currency but poorly understood to the point of being anodyne), but on the other hand are marginalizing feminism, to examine the impact of this on 'ecofeminism '. Finally, I will explore the territory of ecofeminism 's leading/radical edge to speculate on where this may take both conceptual understanding and policy in the future. First, however, to put this discussion into context, I will briefly review ecofeminist arguments to illustrate their range, before focusing on the constructivist approach, which has had the most traction in gender/environment debates in the last two decades. Ecofeminist approaches It is tempting to use a retrospective to try to impose some sort of order on past intellectual activity, and what I am attempting to do first in this article is to explore whether there is an intellectual trajectory, through a not necessarily coherent body of thinking and writing on gender and environment in the late twentieth century. In teasing out the possible relationship between women 's position, gender relations, feminism, and the way in which Western society is seeking to control or manage the environment, ecofeminist writers in the 1970s and 1980s explored the relative importance of essentialism and social construction in these relationships. The social constructivist analyses (which tended to dominate French and British writing; see, for example, Mellor 1992) drew from the Marxist and social feminist literature to show how women 's position in society (as, for example, carers of children and other vulnerable family members, domestic workers, and low paid/status workers) derived from prevailing social and economic structures, which exposed them to a particular set of environmental incivilities. The specifically ecofeminist argument here proposed that, since the same social and economic structures also produced wide-scale environmental damage, then women could, in some sense, 'share ' this experience and were therefore better placed to argue on nature 's behalf. The essentialist argument that underpinned some of the North American and Australian analyses proposed that women had a particular relationship with nature by virtue of their biology (predominantly as actual or potential child bearers) and that this proximity to nature qualified them to speak more eloquently on nature 's behalf (see, for example, Spretnak 1989; Daly 1978). Different authors drew on each position to different degrees, and much of the critique of ecofeminism (well articulated in Biehl 1991) over the past 20 years has focused on the problems perceived with essentialism, and on the validity of a shared experience between the human and non-human. Dennis Smith (2001), in discussing the role of gender in peace and conflict, has argued that essentialism is often used as a tool to mobilize a group around a perceived characteristic which sets it apart, and, certainly, cultural ecofeminism (prioritizing essentialist arguments) did so. Its strength was to demonstrate the possibility of a way of thinking and being which reversed the normal hierarchy in which men stood at the peak; however, little academic feminist environmental thinking is currently framed in this way. Indeed, as Gillian Rose (1993) noted, to accept that women had an irreducible 'female essence ' would be tantamount to admitting that others distinguished by 'difference ' (such as minority ethnic populations, disabled people or gay men and women, and men more widely) could be driven to behave in similarly 'essential ' ways, which, by definition, would be unchanging and unchangeable, an argument that social scientists have been working hard to refute for many years. The argument that informs this paper is based on an interpretation of ecofeminism that is constructivist and it is certainly this strand that appears to have informed policy development over the past 20 years. Changes in the environmental discourse: policy By 2001, a paper in the Journal of Gender Studies was taking as axiomatic that governments throughout the world were beginning to focus more attention on the subject of gender equality (Bhattar 2001, 17). The following section reviews the extent to which mainly inter/transnational policy has accomplished this transition, whilst Table 1 illustrates how both environmental policy and women 's equality policy have been dialectically affected by each other. One practice that has become much more widely embedded at the national/international level from the early 1990s is gender mainstreaming (3). Framed within human rights and equality discourses that have informed the United Nations (UN), it has become a plank of all UN conventions since the environment and women 's conferences of the early-mid 1990s. Jointly, the outcomes of the two conferences shown in Table 1 have promoted the inclusion of environmental impacts and women 's interests in other UN agreements, such as those concerning habitat, social inclusion and poverty. Whilst, arguably, the national machineries of the signatory states of these conventions are necessary as catalysts for promoting gender equality and justice, those same state structures are embedded in structural inequalities and it is sometimes difficult to see how they may be used to make anything other than superficial changes (Rai 2003). Molyneaux (1998) distinguishes between women 's 'practical ' and 'strategic ' needs, whereby addressing such 'practical ' needs as better childcare (or, in environmental terms, reducing nitrogen dioxide or particulate pollution as a contributor to childhood asthma) does nothing to challenge existing power structures. However, strategic interests (such as challenging a society which values the macho image of much car driving/ownership) take on existing patriarchal 'paradigms of power '. Rai argues that an effective way of gender mainstreaming would be to frame women 's interests (both practical and strategic) in the wider interests of a just society rather than the commonly adopted additive nature of gender analysis. The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 was the first UN conference to be significantly informed by the non-governmental sector. Its centrepiece (or at least, the element that achieved the most publicity, and was least scathed by the Rio +5 evaluation; see Osborn and Bigg 1998), Agenda 21, was a testament to the sustained lobbying by women 's groups (as part of a wider NGO presence, and local government). The preparatory meetings took place across the globe for two years and ensured a reasonably coherent lobby from the women/environment movement world-wide, leading to the inclusion of a set of objectives defined in Chapter 24 'Global action for women towards sustainable development and equitable action ' (United Nations 1992). The link between women and the environment was consolidated, internationally, at the 1995 4th UN Conference on Women in Beijing. The resulting Platform for Action identified 'women and environment ' as one of the critical areas of concern. UNEDUK 's 'Gender 21 ' group subdivided this concern into education, health, marginalized groups, planning, housing and transport, Local Agenda 21, and consumption and waste (Barber et al. 1997). Ten years after UNCED, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) did little to advance women 's equality with respect to the environment, although the need to embed women 's (or sometimes termed 'gendered ') concerns was written more thoroughly into the Plan of Implementation. Few achievements were noted in the intervening ten years; for example, the UN had expressed frustration at the lack of progress on issues as wide as AIDS/HIV, globalization, poverty, and health--all of which are characterized by gender inequality. Point 20 of The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development commits to ensuring that 'women 's empowerment and emancipation, and gender equality are integrated in all activities encompassed within Agenda 21, The Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation ' (Middleton and O 'Keefe 2003). This plan variously refers to women, females, women and men, and gender, both generally (as in 'the outcomes of the summit should benefit all, including women ... '), and with reference to specific programmes. Such programmes include good governance (item 4), poverty eradication (6), eliminating violence (6), discrimination (6), health (6, 46, 47), economic opportunity (6), land ownership (10a), water (24), agriculture (38f), technology (49), energy (49), and area-specific programmes such as mountain areas and Africa (40c, 56). It also embeds gender considerations into the means of implementing the Plan, such as education, data collection, indicator provision, public participation and decision making. Such a thorough weaving of gender/women throughout the Plan of Implementation is, in some ways, an improvement on the targeted Chapter 24 focusing on women in Agenda 21, but it is too soon to establish whether it will have any effect on signatory states ' treatment of women, particularly in relation to the environment. Participants in the Women 's Platform at the NGO Forum at the WSSD had mixed reactions: both welcoming a more thoroughly embedded inclusion of women in plans (Women 's Environment and Development Organization 2002) and exasperation at the assumption in the main conference that 'women 's issues ' had already been dealt with at Rio (Women 's Environmental Network/Women in Europe for a Common Future 2002). There is some evidence that the women 's groups were right to be suspicious as, in preparation for the WSSD, the UN Commission for Sustainable Development, in its own preparatory committee, identified the participation of women at all political levels as 'still relatively low, and the level of participation at the international level is not adequately geographically balanced or adequately financed ' (UN Economic and Social Council 2001, 43). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Gender mainstreaming On the basis of the women 's groups involved in submitting evidence to the UN preparatory committees, it could be argued that the inputs into the UNCED and Beijing conferences were influenced by the ecofeminist debates from the 1980s onwards. As such, it is possible to see how constructivist ecofeminism has been incorporated into policy governing gender relations, environment, and the linking of women and environment. One of these outcomes is 'gender mainstreaming '. The UN pioneered 'gender mainstreaming ' which requested signatories of the 4th World Conference on Women 'to mainstream a gender perspective into all policies and programmes, so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men ' (United Nations 1995). The European Union accepted the principle of gender mainstreaming in 1996 and this has been formalized in the Treaty of Amsterdam, which commits member states to the 'elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equality between women and men ' (European Union 1997). For example, a recent investigation of the gendered impact of waste management practice (4) in selected European Union member states illustrates the scope for this and the limited amount of good practice that is beginning to emerge (this point will be developed below and in Buckingham et al. 2004). It is also clear that the European Union commitment, and subsequent UK commitment, to gender mainstreaming through the Women and Equality Unit (1998) is not filtering down to the local level of waste management in anything but a piecemeal fashion. The World Bank has identified practical reasons, consistent with its aims and practices, for incorporating gender equality into its programmes. | | Gender is an issue of development effectiveness, not just a matter of political correctness or kindness to women. Evidence demonstrates that when women and men are relatively equal, economies tend to grow faster, the poor move more quickly out of poverty and the well being of men, women and children is enhanced. World Bank 2002 | Whilst most policymakers would not challenge these aims, ecofeminists do question the validity of pursuing economic growth, as much of this is likely to produce negative impacts on the environment. Their argument (see, for example, Mellor 1992; Merchant 1996; Plumwood 1993) rests on changing our priorities, whereby we may be driven more by quality of life issues, and that it is redistribution that should be at the heart of policy, rather than genderating more growth. Ecofeminist literature suggests that women might be better able than men to effect this change, and that, therefore, it is not just a matter of equality within existing structures, but of changing the structures to reflect this mode of thinking, a point that will be developed when considering future trajectories of ecofeminism. Bhattar (2001) argues that gender mainstreaming, since the 1980s, has sought to integrate gender concerns as part of 'business as usual ', and that part of this approach has been to raise the number of female appointments to decision-making posts. Her reservations on this procedure are that this only works if women are able to 'fundamentally reorient the nature of the mainstream ' (2001, 22), which requires all policymakers to accept that there are 'fundamental differences in the experience and interpretation of reality between women and men ' (2001, 22). Unless policymakers are aware of this in advance, no amount of gender mainstreaming initiatives will make any difference. She argues that a 'critical mass ' of women is needed in decision-making fora to create the possibility for women to support each other in policy initiatives, to be a catalyst for other women to be involved, and to be in a position to allocate and control resources. A consensus seems to accumulate around a 30-35% minimum ratio of women to men to create critical mass (see also Dahlerup 1988; UNDAW & PRIO 1996). Gender considerations in UK environmental policy This critical mass has demonstrated its importance in the gender mainstreaming research referred to above. The UK was one of three case study countries in which a number of waste management authorities were examined to explore the extent to which they considered how their policy and practice may have gendered impacts. Of all the case studies examined, this (let it be called CS1--a semi-rural county council in southern England) stood out in terms of the consideration gender was given in its public participation procedures, consultations and internal training policies. CS1 was also one of the few waste management authorities which had a significant number of women employed in senior posts--waste management being a notoriously masculine profession based on engineering and technical solutions. Staff interviewed in CS1 indicated that the waste management team was more sympathetic to waste minimization based on attitudinal and behavioural shifts, rather than on the 'technological fix ', and had achieved a relatively high recycling rate of 20% (compared with just under 15% nationally by 2003). Whilst the county produces a higher than average amount of waste (it is a prosperous region), significant inroads into reducing landfill are being achieved by a widespread 'real nappy campaign ', which supports families with lower incomes to use cloth rather than paper nappies. Whilst evidence of the link between gender-sensitive employment practice, training, public participation and policies remains at this stage circumstantial, it is a relationship that warrants further investigation. Despite some indication that CS1 may indirectly be an example of ways in which UK environmental policy has been influenced by some forms of ecofeminism, the overwhelming conclusions of the research are that gender remains on the periphery of waste management. Local politicians and policy officers mostly expressed a reluctance to 'favour ' one group over another and claimed that they 'treated everyone the same ', ostensibly unaware that this approach can lead to institutional and structural inequalities of outcome. The Treaty of Amsterdam, which clearly promotes positive action, short of quotas, in favour of disadvantaged groups in order to achieve equality, does not appear to have made an impression in most local waste authorities. Nevertheless, it became clear through focus groups and interviews that, when pressed, respondents volunteered a number of examples where women and men would experience waste in different ways--health concerns over incinerators (mostly mothers), commitment to recycling (more likely to be women), inability to use unwieldy waste bins (many women, as well as elderly or more frail men). Respondents also identified difficulties mothers with dependent children were likely to have in attending public meetings which, despite many decades of feminist lobbying, still do not make provision for childcare and the timing of which is geared to accommodate the conventional 9-5 working day. The continued focus on a 'universal public ' undifferentiated by gender constitutes rather a dissembling discourse in which policy officers and elected councillors claim to have 'gone beyond ' gender, indeed, some talk of avoiding gender stereotyping, without, it seems, being fully aware or admitting the realities which structure women 's and men 's lives. Successful gender-sensitive policy can only develop out of sound understanding and acknowledgement of gender inequalities. Such policy would ease the burden of women 's lives, where they are bound by gendered roles, whilst ensuring that this policy did not confine women to these roles. That most local authorities in the UK now have Equal Opportunities Officers (EOOs) indicates a commitment to address some inequalities (although the balance of work of these officers differs--in a London case study the emphasis was much more on addressing black and minority ethnic inequalities). In the majority of authorities examined, however, EOOs fulfilled mostly a human resources function to ensure that staff all had equal opportunities and few waste management authorities had drawn on their own council 's expertise in this field. A new Local Government Association Equalities Standard represents a way in which local authorities can embed equal opportunities and diversity throughout their work, although its impact will depend on how seriously this is undertaken, or whether it is used superficially to add the kitemark to a marketing exercise. Returning to CS1 to conclude these comments on the extent to which an ecofeminist agenda might have indirectly informed local environmental policy making, the LGAES had been used by the county 's waste management team to review the way in which they tackled their work, and public participation was one area in which some effort had been addressed to ensure that women were well represented. There is no evidence that national and regional waste management strategies have responded to the government 's own gender mainstreaming guidelines (Women and Equality Unit 1998). An examination of waste management policy documents published since this guidance was issued revealed not a single mention of women or gender (5). Changes in environmental discourse: environmental protest Rai (2003) argues that civil society (specifically women 's groups) is essential to strengthen the resolve of government to gender mainstreaming, and to hold it to account. The degree to which any government is open to civil society scrutiny will determine the effectiveness of policy monitoring. Indeed, as the above discussion shows, the global environmental debate has recognized the importance of enabling women and men to participate meaningfully in environmental policy formation and decision making through civil society structures, as well as through more formal representative structures. Such participation requires the means to access information which, in the Third World, means eliminating inequalities in education from the primary level. At present, the global adult literacy rate for men is 85%, whilst that for women is 74% (UN Economic and Social Council 2001). Public participation usually relates to forms of democratic challenge which are formalized and organized in relation to state decision-making structures. Less formal expressions of political protest emerge when these formalized structures of participation are found wanting--when fundamental breaches of 'natural justice ' are as much the result of governing structures as their neglect. Such protests are more likely to be organized by women, themselves on the margins of formal decision making, and this has characterized the grass roots environmental movement in disparate geographical locations. The early ecofeminist literature canonized 'movements ' such as the Chipco in Himalayan India, the Green Belt in Kenya, the Love Canal in New York State and drew attention to the role of women in dramatizing the links between environmental damage, the human impacts of this, women 's relative lack of power, and the strategies this lack of power has necessitated (see, respectively, Mies and Shiva 1993; Dankleman and Davidson 1988; Gibbs 1998). Wickramasinghe links the conceptual and practical aspects of ecofeminism in her work in South Asia, arguing that this region, particularly in rural areas, has been at the centre of ecofeminism, and that this has helped women conceptualize the links between women and the environment. These inequalities--the gender gaps in education, and the distribution of rural work--have not been eased by 'development [but have been] reendorsed in newly created development paradigms ' (Wickramasinghe 2003, 230). What such movements lack in terms of financial resources, they make up for in imagination, commitment and social cohesion. Indeed, Seager claims that 'at its best, feminist environmentalism rocks boats ' in a variety of policy and philosophical areas (2003, 167). It combines theory and activism to 'challenge and redefine foundational principles ' (2003, 167). In the UK, the Women 's Environmental Network (WEN), founded to counter what was seen as a masculinist bias in environmental campaigning (6), has taken on issues that particularly affect women in attention-grabbing campaigns such as 'Getting Lippy ' (investigating chemically toxic ingredients in cosmetics), 'Real Nappies ' (promoting the use of cloth nappies to reduce the 8 million disposable nappies that are discarded, mostly to landfill, each day), and 'Chocolate ' (raising awareness of the toxic pesticide residues of lindane which still exist in some non-organic chocolate bars). Whilst the link between poverty and women is not explicitly made, WEN 's work is founded on the understanding that women are not well placed to argue within business or government and this has been borne out through several public battles with advertisers. Both the establishment of WEN in 1988 and its current practice is informed by ecofeminism, which, through WEN 's increasingly sought after policy advisory role, is indirectly finding its way into some UK government policy. In some ways, the example of WEN illustrates the scope for more radical protest finding its way into public policy several years down the line. The WEN waste minimization campaign demonstrates this as well, as the organization is now called upon to advise central government and local authorities: it has made a significant corrective input into the Greater London Authority 's Waste Plan and was a partner in the European research into the gendered impacts of waste management cited above. The challenge for WEN, as a multi-issue campaigning organization, is to combine working at the more radical ecofeminist edge, raising issues of salience to women, and often ignored in other policy fora, whilst retaining the ability to have an input into government policy. This apparent balancing act is well explored by Neil Carter (2001), who examines the environmental movement more widely. Future trajectories for ecofeminism Environmental justice The environmental justice movement has grown in scope over the past two decades, emerging primarily from analyses of environmental inequalities based on race/ethnicity and poverty. Whilst ecofeminism has not claimed to be part of this, it clearly shares a number of its characteristics, not least, the fact that from the micro to the macro level, women are more likely than men to be classified as 'in poverty ' the world over. The environmental justice literature, previously dominated by poverty and race issues, is just beginning to address gender. This is timely since there is accumulating evidence that gender is disproportionately associated with disadvantage in a number of ways. An Equal Opportunities Commission funded report recently found that even when controlling for factors such as labour market status, age and number of children, household composition, and age, there was still a clear gender dimension to poverty, and that women who are single pensioners, unemployed, of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, teenage householders and/or tenants, are more likely than men with the same characteristics to be poor (Bradshaw et al. 2003). Such disadvantage has an impact on the extent to which these women are trapped in poor quality environments. It is also noticeable how women, compared with men, are disproportionately disadvantaged in both chronic and catastrophic environmental hazard situations. Fordham (2003) identifies how this is either as a direct result of the hazard, for example, in the 1991 cyclone in Bangladesh which killed almost 140 000 people, 90% of the victims were women and children, or indirectly. Here Fordham considers violence against women which increases in high-stress situations, both in environmental catastrophes and chronically environmentally stressed situations, but which is largely ignored in the male-dominated field of disaster management and development. Much of the ecofeminism literature refers to 'embodiedment '--or how women 's bodies are particularly vulnerable to environmental pollution (see, for example, Mellor 1992; Salleh 1997), and yet, historically, safe chemical loads have tended to be calculated on the basis of men 's body tolerance to exposure over an eight-hour period (i.e. work time). New European legislation (such as REACH--The European Registration and Evaluation Authority for the Restriction of Chemicals) and recent publications are beginning to draw attention to the vulnerability of pregnant women (EEA 2003), women more generally (European Union) and women at different stages of their life cycle, such as at puberty and menopause (Women 's Environmental Network 2003). However, there are still relatively few instances of such recognition in the actual legislation. There is, consequently, significant scope to develop an environmental justice case along the lines that women are more vulnerable to toxic exposure both due to their social roles, which are more likely to consign them to poverty than men, and their biology. Recent publications on environmental justice (see, for example, Agyeman et al. 2003) are beginning to incorporate concerns about women into their analyses, and, more particularly, groups of women who are additionally marginalized by their income, occupation, ethnicity or disability. This is an important inclusion, given that environmental justice issues are becoming more widely heard and argued in North America and Europe. Non-human others In 2003, two feminist/environmentalist writers published on the extension of feminist/environmental concerns into animal rights. Joni Seager argued that a shared structure of oppression, a feminist analysis of allocation of rights and gendered assumptions about the relationship between human and nonhuman species underpinned both ecofeminism and animal rights (Seager 2003). Seager goes further to suggest that both concerns share the problem of being consigned to a dualistic 'other ' that, in reality, is more of a continuum (see also Haraway 2000). Such extensions of feminist/environmentalist concerns reach into debates into food production systems, and recreational activities such as hunting, both of which can be enriched, she argues, by an ecofeminist perspective. Likewise, Val Plumwood, who, in the 1990s argued for a dissolution of the dualistic way of seeing men and women (Plumwood 1993), has extended this analysis to argue for a new 'interspecies ' ethic as the only way in which to avert what she sees as an ecological crisis, born of human hubris, sado-dispassion, rationality and a dualistic culture which has separated 'nature ' and 'culture ' in the West. Plumwood sees what/who she describes as the 'Hero of Reason ' (2003, 21) as responsible for the 'sado-dispassionate ... cultural drama of reason and nature [unfolding to] choke the life from his planetary partner in his final sadistic act of mastery ' (2003, 22). Her aim is to provide 'recipes for escaping [this] situation ' (2003, 36) and she uses most of the book to critique not only industrial and post-industrial approaches to the Earth and to what she variously refers to as Earth Others, supra-human, non-human and more-than-human (as alternative descriptors for life which is not classified as human), but also other spiritual traditions and approaches of deep ecology. Conclusions The relationship of the leading or radical edge of any social movement to the state is complex and increasingly well theorized (see, for example, Carter (2001), trading off radical action with incorporation). With regard to gender, Rai (2003) argues that, whilst it is important to work within the state, such a strategy cannot be used exclusively, as the radical edge identifies the future, possibly less politically acceptable challenges. This 'radical edge ' has, I would argue, a particular salience with regard to environmental feminism, as protest and community politics is sometimes seen as the only way in which women, as a minority in decision-making arenas, can make their voice heard. This is as true within the academy (where both women and feminist studies of one sort or another are marginalized) as beyond. In looking back, then, over the past 30 years of ecofeminism, I would argue that significant strides have been made to incorporate women 's and gender issues within certain policy areas at both the global and the local level. The evidence for this, where it exists, lies in the campaigning groups which have informed international agreements and local practice. This is, of course, particularly so where the aims of these groups have coincided with the practical aims of international and aid agencies (such as Oxfam or the World Bank). With regard to scale, there is no smooth cascade from the macroscale international announcements of the UN or European Union through national government legislation, to local and regional policy making and enactment, nor are there mechanisms to evaluate how these macro-pronouncements find or lose their way in policy. Although some local policies have benefited from contextual inputs that have introduced a degree of ecological and gender-sensitive change, real obstacles prevent structural changes to social systems to ensure that equality and feminist concerns are routinely part of environmental decision making, and ecofeminist theoreticians and activists continue to expose these concerns. | | Table 1 Strategies for linking women and environment

Bringing gender into the environment Bringing the environment into gender

1992 United Nations Conference on 1995 United Nations 4th Conference on
Environment and Development Women and Platform of Action
2002 World Summit on Sustainable UK Government Gender Mainstreaming Development advice
EU Gender Mainstreaming DGXI incorporates examples from the environment field
Environmental Justice movement | Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the European Commission Directorate General--Environment for funding Study Contract B4-3040/2002/343154/MAR/A2, and Anna Batchelor, Brunel University, who collected the UK data on which some of this paper is based. This paper was accepted for publication in March 2004 Notes 1 Ecofeminism as a neologism was conceived by Francoise D 'Eubonne to signify the conjoining of radical ecological and feminist thinking in a variety of perspectives, which sought to eliminate gender inequalities and hierarchies in a way that valued the environment and articulated parallels between women 's and environmental exploitation. 2 The reason for focusing on the European Union and its member states is twofold: firstly, European Union policy has been committed to gender mainstreaming for 8 years, which gives a certain perspective from which to consider its efficacy; secondly, the author 's own research is focused on Europe, and specifically on gender mainstreaming in environmental policy. 3 UNDAW has defined this as 'the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy of making women 's as well as men 's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality ' (Rai 2003). 4 Study into 'Gender-differentiated impacts of municipal waste management planning in the European Union ' from The Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General--Environment. 5 The policy documents scrutinized since the 'Gender mainstreaming policy guidance ' was published were 'Planning policy guidance note 10: planning and waste management ' (1999); 'Waste strategy 2000 for England and Wales '; 'Strategic planning for sustainable waste management: guidance on option development and appraisal ' (2002). 6 For details about WEN, contact [e-mail]. References Agyeman J, Bullard R D and Evans B 2003 Just sustainabilities, development in an unequal world Earthscan/MIT Press, London Barber S, Carroll V, Mawle A and Nugent C 1997 'Gender 21, women and sustainable development ' Paper prepared by the Gender 21 Round Table, UNED-UK, London Bhattar G 2001 Of geese and ganders: mainstreaming gender in the context of sustainable human development Journal of Gender Studies 10 1 Biehl J 1991 Rethinking ecofeminist politics South End Books, Boston, MA Bradshaw J, Finch N, Kemp P A, Mayhew E and Williams J 2003 Gender and poverty in Britain Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester Buckingham S, Reeves D, The Women 's Environmental Network, Batchelor A and Colucas S 2004 Research into gender differentiated impacts of municipal waste planning in the European Union Final report to the CEC Directorate General Environment, Brussels Carter N 2001 The politics of the environment Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Dahlerup D 1988 From a small to a large minority: women in Scandinavian politics Scandinavian Political Studies 11 4 Daly M 1978 Gyn/ecology: the metaethics of radical feminism Women 's Press, London Dankleman I and Davidson J 1988 Women and environment in the Third World, alliance for the future Earthscan, London European Union 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam OJ C 340, 10 November Fordham M 2003 Gender, disaster and development: the necessity for integration in Pelling M ed Natural disasters and development in a globalizing world Routledge, London Gibbs L 1998 Love canal, the story continues New Society Press, Gabriola Island, BC Mellor M 1992 Breaking the boundaries, towards a feminist green socialism Virago Press, London Merchant C 1996 Earthcare, women and the environment Routledge, London Middleton N and O 'Keefe P 2003 Rio plus ten. Politics, poverty and the environment Pluto Press, London Mies M and Shiva V 1993 Ecofeminism Zed Books, London Molyneaux M 1998 Analysing women 's movements Development and Change 29 Osborn D and Bigg T 1998 Earth Summit II, outcomes and analyses Earthscan, London Plumwood V 1993 Feminism and the mastery of nature Routledge, London Plumwood V 2003 Environmental culture, the ecological crisis of reason Routledge, London Rai S M 2003 Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women: mainstreaming gender, democratizing the state? in Rai S M ed Mainstreaming gender, democratizing the state? Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women Manchester University Press, Manchester Rose G 1993 Feminism and geography: the limits of geographical knowledge Polity Press, Cambridge Salleh A 1997 Ecofeminism as politics: nature, Marx and the postmodern Zed Books, London Seager J 2003 Pepperoni or broccoli? On the cutting wedge of feminist environmentalism Gender, Place, Culture 10 2 Smith D 2001 The problems of essentialism in Skjelsbaek and Smith D eds Gender, peace and conflict Sage, London Spretnak C 1989 Toward an ecofeminist spirituality in Plant J Healing the wounds New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA UNDAW & PRIO 1996 Political decision making and conflict resolution: the impact of gender difference Expert Group Meeting in Santo Domingo 7-11 October, Dominican Republic EGM/PRDC/1996/REP.1 UN Division for the Advancement of Women, New York United Nations 1992 Agenda 21 United Nations, Geneva United Nations 1995 Report of the 4th World Conference on Women 4-15 September, Beijing (UN Publication Sales No E.96.IV.13) United Nations Economic and Social Council 2001 Commission on Sustainable Development acting as the preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Implementing Agenda 21, Report of the Secretary-General United Nations, New York Wickramasinghe A 2003 Women and environmental justice in South Asia in Agyeman J, Bullard R and Evans B Just sustainabilities, development in an unequal world Earthscan/MIT Press, London Women and Equality Unit 1998 Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming (http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk) Women 's Environment and Development Organization 2002 Gender analysis of the draft plan of implementation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (http://www.wedo.org/sus_dev/approaches) Women 's Environmental Network 2003 Newsletter autumn Women 's Environmental Network/Women in Europe for a Common Future 2002 Personal communication World Bank 2002 Gender mainstreaming strategy paper (http://www.worldbank.org/gender/overview/ssp/home/htm) SUSAN BUCKINGHAM Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH E-mail: [e-mail] -1- | | |
Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com

Publication Information: Article Title: Ecofeminism in the Twenty-First Century. Contributors: Susan Buckingham - author. Journal Title: The Geographical Journal. Volume: 170. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 146+. COPYRIGHT 2004 Royal Geographical Society; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

References: Agyeman J, Bullard R D and Evans B 2003 Just sustainabilities, development in an unequal world Earthscan/MIT Press, London Barber S, Carroll V, Mawle A and Nugent C 1997 'Gender 21, women and sustainable development ' Paper prepared by the Gender 21 Round Table, UNED-UK, London Bhattar G 2001 Of geese and ganders: mainstreaming gender in the context of sustainable human development Journal of Gender Studies 10 1 Biehl J 1991 Rethinking ecofeminist politics South End Books, Boston, MA Bradshaw J, Finch N, Kemp P A, Mayhew E and Williams J 2003 Gender and poverty in Britain Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester Buckingham S, Reeves D, The Women 's Environmental Network, Batchelor A and Colucas S 2004 Research into gender differentiated impacts of municipal waste planning in the European Union Final report to the CEC Directorate General Environment, Brussels Carter N 2001 The politics of the environment Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Dahlerup D 1988 From a small to a large minority: women in Scandinavian politics Scandinavian Political Studies 11 4 Daly M 1978 Gyn/ecology: the metaethics of radical feminism Women 's Press, London Dankleman I and Davidson J 1988 Women and environment in the Third World, alliance for the future Earthscan, London European Union 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam OJ C 340, 10 November Fordham M 2003 Gender, disaster and development: the necessity for integration in Pelling M ed Natural disasters and development in a globalizing world Routledge, London Gibbs L 1998 Love canal, the story continues New Society Press, Gabriola Island, BC Mellor M 1992 Breaking the boundaries, towards a feminist green socialism Virago Press, London Merchant C 1996 Earthcare, women and the environment Routledge, London Middleton N and O 'Keefe P 2003 Rio plus ten. Politics, poverty and the environment Pluto Press, London Mies M and Shiva V 1993 Ecofeminism Zed Books, London Molyneaux M 1998 Analysing women 's movements Development and Change 29 Osborn D and Bigg T 1998 Earth Summit II, outcomes and analyses Earthscan, London Plumwood V 1993 Feminism and the mastery of nature Routledge, London Plumwood V 2003 Environmental culture, the ecological crisis of reason Routledge, London Rai S M 2003 Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women: mainstreaming gender, democratizing the state? in Rai S M ed Mainstreaming gender, democratizing the state? Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women Manchester University Press, Manchester Rose G 1993 Feminism and geography: the limits of geographical knowledge Polity Press, Cambridge Salleh A 1997 Ecofeminism as politics: nature, Marx and the postmodern Zed Books, London Seager J 2003 Pepperoni or broccoli? On the cutting wedge of feminist environmentalism Gender, Place, Culture 10 2 Smith D 2001 The problems of essentialism in Skjelsbaek and Smith D eds Gender, peace and conflict Sage, London Spretnak C 1989 Toward an ecofeminist spirituality in Plant J Healing the wounds New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA UNDAW & PRIO 1996 Political decision making and conflict resolution: the impact of gender difference Expert Group Meeting in Santo Domingo 7-11 October, Dominican Republic EGM/PRDC/1996/REP.1 UN Division for the Advancement of Women, New York United Nations 1992 Agenda 21 United Nations, Geneva United Nations 1995 Report of the 4th World Conference on Women 4-15 September, Beijing (UN Publication Sales No E.96.IV.13) United Nations Economic and Social Council 2001 Commission on Sustainable Development acting as the preparatory committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Implementing Agenda 21, Report of the Secretary-General United Nations, New York Wickramasinghe A 2003 Women and environmental justice in South Asia in Agyeman J, Bullard R and Evans B Just sustainabilities, development in an unequal world Earthscan/MIT Press, London Women and Equality Unit 1998 Gender Impact Assessment: a framework for gender mainstreaming (http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk) Women 's Environment and Development Organization 2002 Gender analysis of the draft plan of implementation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (http://www.wedo.org/sus_dev/approaches) Women 's Environmental Network 2003 Newsletter autumn Women 's Environmental Network/Women in Europe for a Common Future 2002 Personal communication World Bank 2002 Gender mainstreaming strategy paper (http://www.worldbank.org/gender/overview/ssp/home/htm) SUSAN BUCKINGHAM Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH E-mail: [e-mail] -1- | | | Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: Ecofeminism in the Twenty-First Century. Contributors: Susan Buckingham - author. Journal Title: The Geographical Journal. Volume: 170. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 146+. COPYRIGHT 2004 Royal Geographical Society; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group