Discussion: Definition of gender sensitive LCD

 
Discussion: Definition of gender sensitive LCD
Friday, 23 September 2016, 4:44 PM

Do you know of other (gender sensitive) definitions we could draw from?

Is there anything that needs to be added to this definition, i.e. do you think it lacks particular aspects?

You can provide a general comment on this definition.

Picture of Ana Rojas
Re: Definition
by Ana Rojas - Thursday, 5 September 2013, 1:50 PM
 

I actually think it is a rather dense definition and would suggest reducing or simpligying it's text. For example, it is unclear what the multi-layer process may be or how all different elements are taken into account. Also, given that there is no agreed upon definition, I do not know if adding a target of 1.5C as maximum temperature increase would be helpful or would rather serve as a deterrant for others to use this definition. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if 1.5C could be achieved, but besides that, decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions while doing this from a less technology-centered perspective would already be an important step towards achieving a more equitable and environmentally healthy planet.

Picture of Gail Karlsson
Re: Definition
by Gail Karlsson - Friday, 6 September 2013, 5:57 PM
 

Here is a different formulation, drawn from ENERGIA ideas on gender mainstreaming in the UN Sustainable Energy for All initiative:

Gender-sensitive low carbon development involves the adoption and implementation of plans and policies that promote: (a) improved energy efficiency; (b) a transition to renewable energy sources that do not produce high levels of greenhouse gas emissions or other long-term environmental pollutants; (c) expansion of energy services to currently unserved communities; and (d) gender equality, and attention to the distinct needs of women, in all energy and climate change decision-making, activities, and investments.

  

Picture of Ulrike Roehr
Re: Definition
by Ulrike Roehr - Saturday, 7 September 2013, 10:41 PM
 

I agree with Ana as regards the high density of the definition, but don’t have a suggestion yet for another text.

From my point of view low carbon development should not be fixed to (energy) technologies only – although it is important to change our energy production in a clean one with low emissions, from renewable ressources, accessable and affordable for all. LCD is linked to transportation as well, or to agriculture and other sectors.

Anyhow, from my point of view it is essential to recognize  LCD as a societal transformation: changing our consumption patterns as well as our values and economic system based on growth and increasing consumption. Of course this might be more important for high income countries, but also for countries in transition. I am not sure if it is possible to find common definition, taking into account the differing points of departure.

Picture of Secretariat GenderCC
Summary of comments, suggestion
by Secretariat GenderCC - Monday, 16 September 2013, 4:49 PM
 

Summary of comments:

-         Do we need to develop a definition that encompasses all important elements? Is that possible at all? Maybe we need to merely outline what the issue is about in order to develop criteria? Keeping in mind that the term Low Carbon Development sets certain parameters: it is a technical, one dimensional term that leaves little room to communicate the social and political nature of climate change and energy issues.

-         Inclusion of 1.5°C? This is a strategic question: who we want to have as an ally or how widely accepted and used this definition should become.

-         Clarification required: what is a multi-layer approach?

-         Societal transformation AND change in energy production and other sectors (i.e. cross-sectoral approach)

-         Important elements: access to energy, affordability, energy efficiency, decoupling growth from emission

-         No technology centred approach, instead peoples/equity/justice centred approach

 

 

Considering the complexity of the issue, it might be advisable to refrain from wanting to develop a comprehensive one-sentence definition, initially it could be feasible to explore what are the most important elements are. This will also help to develop the set of criteria.

 

From the comments on the definition suggested by Gotelind, I propose the following:

A definition of gender sensitive LCD should contain:

-          recognising the need to avoid dangerous climate change and increase climate resilience, especially amongst most vulnerable communities

-          recognising the different needs of people (men and women) and countries (developed versus developing) à a form of CBDR?

-          avoiding (risk)technologies/ a purely technology centred approach, i.e. one dimensional approach

-          aiming at affordable access to renewable energy services for everyone/previously marginalised

-          aiming at a transformation of energy production and energy intensive sectors and industries

-          aiming at a societal transformation away from a growth, consumption and technology centred system towards a system based on people’s needs, principles justice centred approach based on

 

Suggestion:

"Gender sensitive low carbon development is a multi-dimensional approach to avoid dangerous climate change by achieving a social and economic transformation that reduces carbon emission while recognising different energy needs of people and countries and addressing existing gender inequalities in carbon emission and energy production. It includes decoupling economic growth from carbon emission, but avoiding pure technology centred solutions, instead striving for an environmental healthy planet and a gender-just and low carbon society”

 

Picture of Secretariat GenderCC
Re: Summary of comments, suggestion
by Secretariat GenderCC - Wednesday, 2 October 2013, 6:48 PM
 

This definition, as I proposed, unfortunately does no longer include reference to resilience. It would be easy to include it by merely adding it, but are there other aspects that need to be included or rephrased?

As I said before, a definition we are all happy with might be hard to come by, but thinking about the definition helps to delineate what we consider most important.

 

Also I would like to know if people consider the reworking of the criteria suitable: I summarised them under different headings and combined some that I felt covered related aspects. Is there still something missing? I would happy to have some feedback and continue working on them.