Tuesday, November 25, 2014
1

让妇女可持续

纽约— 本月举行的联合国“里约+20”地球峰会将提供一个舞台,供人们讨论包容性经济、社会平等和环境保护等问题。基于此,必须将可持续发展置于全球日程最优先的位置。

可以明确的是,没有可持续能源,就无法获得可持续发展。事实上,能够得到能源刺激了各个层面的发展,比如妇女及其健康、安全和自主。

认识到这一点,联合国宣布2012年为全人类可持续能源年(Year of Sustainable Energy for All),联合国秘书长潘基文宣布将发起一个全球计划,力争在2030年完成三大宏伟目标:人人可以获得现代能源服务、全球能源效率提高一倍,以及可持续能源占全球能源消费比例提高一倍。

这些都是全球问题。但是,放眼全球,能源是一个妇女问题。这可能决定了安全和恐惧、自由和奴役,甚至生和死。

在许多地方,特别是农村地区,如果缺乏可持续的能源来源,妇女就得每天花很长时间寻找燃料。从全球情况看,13亿人仍很难获得电力,27亿人(大部分是妇女)需依赖木头、木炭和粪来生火煮食。不管是外出寻觅柴火(可能导致妇女及其女儿遭遇强暴),还是将手中不多的财富用于购买燃烧不充分且烟量很大的煤油,妇女每天都要做出艰难的选择,决定家庭能源的来源和用途。

不可持续能源对健康造成的伤害也大部分被妇女承受了。妇女暴露在高风险烹饪、取暖和照明方式所产生的烟尘中,这导致了每年近200万人丧命,其中85%是妇女和儿童,死因为与此相关的癌症、呼吸道感染和肺病。另有几百万人因此罹患与曝光相关(exposure-related)的疾病。

从社会层面看,医疗诊所缺乏能源束缚了医务人员提供充分医护服务的能力。据估计,发展中国家有20—40万医疗设备得不到充足的电力供应。这意味着疫苗和血液无法安全储存、诊断设备沦为摆设、手术室无法在夜晚使用。

对孕妇来说,缺少可靠电源会给她们自身和腹中胎儿带来重大风险。从全球看,每天有800人死于与妊娠和分娩有关的情况,如果能获得高质量的医护服务——通常需要电力支持——其中的绝大部分可能不会死。

如今,妇女每天都要花大量的时间寻找柴火和其他能源,这种无薪劳动导致了她们没有时间从事生产率更高的活动。而这反过来又导致贫困家庭无法获得急需的收入。

事情本不需要如此。在肯尼亚,改进型柴炉能够节约40%的燃料,这不但减轻了妇女无薪劳动的压力、减少了森林破坏,还让妇女得以将更多时间用于教育、培训和有薪工作,从而减轻了贫困。

向所有人提供可持续能源也可以为其他地方的妇女创造新机会。太阳能可以为整个村庄提供照明、泵水、制冷和医疗、学校及其他公共设施电气化所需要的电力。

此外,可再生能源可以带来移动电话、互联网、电视、和广播为人们提供展望外部世界的窗口,更能令小型、中型和大型企业如虎添翼。室外照明还可以防止针对妇女和少女的暴力行为。

让所有人获得可持续能源需要妇女的全面参与。印度和尼泊尔的经验表明,妇女参与决策能改善本地环境管理。此外,根据一项全球研究的结果,议会代表中妇女比利更高的国家更容易批准国际环境条约。

1992年地球峰会通过的《里约宣言》(里约 Declaration)说:“妇女对环境管理和发展至关重要。因此,妇女的全面参与是获得可持续发展的关键。”

20年后,问题更加紧迫了,我们也再经不起拖延了。这就是我们为什么要把性别平等视为关于2030年人人获得可持续能源这一目标的讨论和参与的最优先事项。

  • Contact us to secure rights

     

  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (1)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. Portrait of Nils-Göran Areskoug

      CommentedNils-Göran Areskoug

      SUSTAINING GENDER PREJUDICE? I read a number of related documents on the WHO homepage, including many speeches that Margaret Chan delivered to promote the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Reason was I felt worried that more than half of the population was excluded from her panorama, namely fathers, men and children. When talking about parents and the parenting role in child care, for instance, it seemed silently "implied by prejudice" that parent was equal to mother only. What had I expected? There is rarely any talk about family, much less any inclusion of fathers. I made a simple statistics by using the search function in these documents. It turned out that the gender ratio between the words for the female partition of the population versus the male one approaches 15 to 1 or more (Practically, the only instance you get "men" in her texts is in the word "women".)

      I just wonder why WHO does not really want to make an effort to stand up for true gender equality in both directions - and why they fail to see its advantage to health and economic conditions globally. And why it is not first priority to work for an inclusion of both parents in the family. Because many of the WHO programs aim at achieving measurable progress by eradicating poverty and starvation one can ask why the additional resources from men (fathers, brothers and sons) that can be mobilized for the survival of the families are not counted equally. (In fact, male inclusion in family life, is often rejected, and its negative effect taken for granted - as if nothing could be done to improve such unfortunate conditions).

      WHO needs to include both genders in its calculations and design a road map for measuring progress as seen from the family as a whole. It appears to be awfully misguided to apply the flaws of Western feminism as a means to combat famine and disease in the developing world. To mobilize the motivation among the WHO people to avoid such miscalculation one can ask how many children have died of starvation merely because of failure to make fathers and men feel included in the family as a shared project. Joint efforts of both parents should be expected to help bringing all family members on a trajectory towards health and relative prosperity. Especially leaders of international NPOs (and NGOs) need to ask themselves what part of their own personal gender expectations might be prejudiced before projecting these perceptions into the organization they should responsibly run.

      I just want you to be attentive of the risk of gender bias and make the reader think about the implications of such imbalance. And I am surprised to find gender views outdated in a global organization that should reflect greatness in leadership, empathy and human dignity in its strategic thinking at the very root of the system.

      Can anybody comment on this counterpoint and calm my worries?

    Featured