‘Dismal’ lack of progress leaves women and girls facing litany of abuses – with no country on track to achieve equality
More than 850 million women and girls are living in countries rated as “very poor” for gender equality, says a new report, subjecting them to a litany of potential restrictions and abuses, including forced pregnancies, childhood marriage and bans from secondary education.
Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa says the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is focused on how they will approach the next seven years to achieve the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Addressing the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development in New York on behalf of AOSIS, PM Fiame said world leaders needed to leave nationalism behind and urgently put action to the rhetoric they had been propagating for the past eight years.
“Climate change, the global financial crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions have taught us that we are even more closely connected than we wish to acknowledge, and that choices made on one end have far and wide reaching devastating impacts on those of us who are many, many miles away,” told the UN High Level Political Forum.
“If we are going to uphold and deliver on our strong commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ and ‘reaching the furthest behind first’ we will have to leave nationalism behind and urgently put action to the rhetoric we have been propagating for the past eight years.”
PM Fiame said it was “time to stop kicking the can further down the road and doing bandage fixes”.
“We have to begin to earnestly address our global development issues, if we are going to begin speaking of a ‘summit of the future’ and ‘for future generations’.
“The sad reality is if we do not take care of today, for many of us, there will be no tomorrow or future.
‘We can do this together’
“We believe we can do this together, as the international community, if we return to the strong resolve, we had following the MDGs and knowing that if nothing drastic was done we would be worse off than we were as a global community in 1992 in Rio when we spoke of “the future we want,” Fiame said.
Faced with continuous and multiple crises, and without the ability to address these in any substantial and sustainable way, SIDS were on the “proverbial hamster wheel with no way out”, the Samoa Prime Minister said.
Therefore what was needed was to:
“Firstly, take urgent action on the climate change front — more climate financing; drastic cuts and reduction in greenhouse emissions, 1.5 is non-negotiable, everyone is feeling the mighty impacts of this, but not many of us have what it takes to rebounded from the devastation.
“This forthcoming COP28 needs to be a game changer, results must emanate from it — the Loss and Damage Fund needs to be fully operationalised and financed; we need progressive movement from the global stocktake; and states parties need to enhance NDCs.
“Secondly, urgent reform of the governance structure and overall working of the international financial architecture. It is time for it to be changed from its archaic approach to finance.
“We need a system that responds more appropriately to the varied dynamics countries face today; that goes beyond GDP; that takes into account various vulnerabilities and other aspects; that would look to utilise the Multi-Vulnerability Index, Bridgetown Initiative and all other measures that help to facilitate a more holistic and comprehensive insight into a country’s true circumstances.
‘More inclusive participation’
“This reform must also allow for a more inclusive and broader participation.
“Thirdly, urgently address high indebtedness in SIDS, this can no longer be ignored. There needs to be a concerted effort to address this.
“As we continually find ourselves in a revolving door between debt and reoccurring debt due to our continuous and constant response to economic, environmental and social shocks caused by external factors,” Prime Minister Fiame said.
“I appeal to you all to take a pause and join forces to make 2030 a year that we can all be proud of,” she said.
“In this vein, please be assured of AOSIS making our contribution no matter how minute it may be. We are fully committed. We invite you to review our interregional outcome document, the ‘Praia Declaration’ for a better understanding of our contribution.
“And we look forward to your constructive engagement as together we chart the 10-year Programme of Action for SIDS in 2024,” she said.
Fiame said the recently concluded Preparatory Meetings for the 4th International Conference on SIDS affirmed the unwavering commitment of SIDS to implement the 2030 Agenda as they charted a 10-year plan for a “resilient and prosperous future for our peoples”.
A ‘tough journey’
“We do recognise that the journey for us will be tough and daunting at times, but we are prepared and have a strong resolve to achieve this. However, we do also recognise and acknowledge that we cannot do this on our own.”
The summit marks the mid-point of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It will review the state of the SDGs implementation, provide policy guidance, mobilise action to accelerate implementation and consider new challenges since 2015.
The summit will address the impact of multiple and interlocking crises facing the world, including the deterioration of key social, economic and environmental indicators. It will focus first and foremost on people and ways to meet their basic needs through the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
This is the second SDG Summit, the first one was held in 2019.
The last USAID office in the region was closed over 25 years ago.
The haste with which the US re-established these offices with its Administrator, Dr Samantha Power — a former Harvard professor, flying from the US to officiate in the ceremonies in Suva and in Port Moresby in PNG on August 15 has also got some sceptics in the region questioning its motives.
Addressing Pacific youth at a ceremony at the University of the South Pacific, also attended by the Pacific Island Forum’s Secretary-General Henry Puna — a former prime minister of Cook Islands — Power said USAID was setting up an office in the Pacific to help them to directly “listen, learn, and better understand” the challenges that Pacific Island countries were facing.
“Our new mission here in Fiji and our office in Papua New Guinea — are not going to come in and impose our ideas or our solutions for the shared challenges that we face” she told an audience of students and academics from the region.
USP is one of only two regional universities in the world largely funded by regional countries. She described the two missions as “reinvigorated (US) commitment to the Pacific Islands”.
At a number of times during her 20-minute speech, Power emphasised that USAID only gave grants and they did not give loans.
“As we increase our investments here in the Pacific, I want to be very clear — and this is subject to some misunderstanding — so please, I hope I am very clear,” she said.
Not forcing nations
“The United States is not forcing nations to choose between partnering with the United States and partnering with other nations to meet their development goals.
“That said, we do want you to have a choice. It’s not a choice that we will make for you, but we want you to have options.
“We want Pacific Island nations to have more options to work with partners whose values and vision for the future align with your own.”
Although Dr Power did not mention China in her speech, this could be interpreted as a reference to the Chinese presence in the Pacific and the “rules-based order” the US and its allies claim to promote in the region.
She immediately added to the above comments by pointing out that USAID only gives grants.
“We are very interested in economic independence, and independence of choice and not saddling future generations with attachments and debts that will later have to be paid,” she said.
“And we will engage with you openly, transparently, with respect for individual dignity and the benefits of inclusive governance, the benefits of being held accountable by your citizens, and we will join you in seeking to combat corrupt dealings that can enrich elites often at the expense of everyday citizens.”
Training farmers in new techniques
Another area where they would allocate funding would be training farmers in new techniques to grapple with changing weather patterns and encroaching salt water.
She also announced the launch of a new initiative, a Blue Carbon Assessment, to quantify the true value of the marine carbon sinks across the Blue Pacific continent.
Referring to Dr Power’s comments about reinvigorating the US’s commitment to the region, Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), told IDN that this was a way to frame the US as a partner of choice by allowing the islanders to determine what is a priority in terms of their development.
“The US is not the only development partner that is suggesting this,” she added, “Australia’s recent Development Policy attempts to frame themselves is no different.”
Referring to US ally Australia’s aid policies, she pointed out that for decades there has been accusation of tied aid, “boomerang aid” by many of our development partners — or how aid is an extension of foreign policy and therefore it is by its nature extractive — an iron fist in a velvet glove”.
“But its other implication is to subtly suggest that the US and its allies’ goals are unlike what China does, which is to ‘extract concessions’ through this relationship either through ensuring that Chinese companies get the contracts, Chinese labour is recruited (as well as) many other forms of accusation of Chinese engagement in the region,” Penjueli said.
During an interaction with the local media after her speech, a local television reporter told Dr Power that critics had been quick to say that the US was ramping up support in the greater Indo-Pacific region because it believed that American dominance was at risk.
“How do you respond to such an observation? And why should Pacific leaders choose US diplomatic support over Chinese support?”, the reporter asked.
“Lots of experience around the world is the recognition that governance and human rights, and economic development go hand in hand,” Dr Power replied.
“You can have economic development without human rights, but it’s almost impossible to have inclusive economic development that reaches broad segments of the population.
“So, we really believe that a development model that values transparency, that ensures that private sector investment is conducted in a manner that benefits broad swaths of the population rather than like a couple of government officials who take a bribe or pay a bribe.”
Grants at a time of a different model Dr Power also added that USAID gave grants at a time when others were pushing a very different model, “which is much more about concentrating both political and economic power, which tends to stifle the voices of citizens to hold their leaders accountable, allows officials to do what they believe is right, but without checks and balances”.
USAID is representing the reopening of the two offices as a follow up to President Biden’s meeting with the Pacific leaders in Washington DC last year.
Its Manila-based deputy assistant director of USAID, Betty Chung, has told Radio New Zealand that currently there are just two staffers in Fiji but by the end of the year, they hope to have eight to 10 there, building up to about 30.
Also the USAID budget for the Pacific has tripled in the past three years.
In a joint press conference in Port Moresby, PNG Prime Minister James Marape has welcomed USAID’s renewed commitments to the region and said that Power’s presence completes what is President Biden’s 3D strategy — diplomacy, defence, and development — in the focus to revamp the US presence in PNG and the Pacific.
He also referred to recent defence agreements signed with the US but said that it should not be a one-way relationship on how they relate to the US. He asked Power and UNAID to assist PNG in preserving their forest resources.
Pacific people need to watch
Pointing out that PNG is home to one-third of the world’s forests and 67 percent of global biodiversity, Marape said that he had asked Dr Power to take the message back to the US and particularly to Congress “who sometimes offer resistance to support to emerging nations” — to help PNG to preserve its forest resources to offset the US “huge carbon footprint”.
Referring to Dr Power’s undertaking that she came to the Pacific to listen, Penjueli said that people in the Pacific needed to watch how USAID could translate this listening exercise into grant-making and in which areas and how they do it.
“For Pacific Island governments, I do believe that they are in a better place, this gives them more options to consider if they (foreign donors) support their own development needs particularly in the current context of a climate emergency, post-pandemic debt stress economies and an ongoing Ukraine war.”
Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is a Sri Lanka-born journalist, broadcaster and international communications specialist. He is currently a consultant to the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific. He is also the former head of research at the Asian Media Information and Communication Center (AMIC) in Singapore and the Asia-Pacific editor of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate. This article is republished under content sharing agreement between Asia Pacific Report and IDN.
Dr Samantha Power (pink in the centre with garland) with University of the South Pacific students at the Laucala campus in Suva, Fiji. Image: Kalinga Seneviratne/IDN
A new initiative has been launched in 15 Pacific Island countries to improve educational standards.
The Pacific Regional Inclusive Education Review was launched last week with each country having their own national surveys with the assistance of community groups, NGOs and stakeholders.
It has has been signed by Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
The Pacific Disability Forum comprises one of the many networks used to complete the survey, and it has roots in 21 countries.
Its main objective is to ensure children, including those living with disabilities, access quality learning.
The Forum’s CEO, Setareki Macanawai, said the review allowed for an understanding of the current issues within education across the region.
“[The purpose is] to have a shared understanding, and I think this is what this review has done. It has provided a lens-key, a good starting point. A good starting point condition for us in the Pacific to then develop a shared understanding of what inclusive education should look like for us in the Pacific.”
Making education accessible
Macanawai also said it was hard to make education accessible in the region due to various pre-conditions.
“There is a lot of stigma, there is a lot of discrimination broadly and generally across the Pacific in the different cultures and societies which is a pre-condition that makes it hard to create an inclusive education for all, particularly those with impairments,” he said.
The biggest challenge to inclusive education in the Pacific is limited access or children living in poor housing. Image: UNICEF Pacific/2022/Temakei/RNZ Pacific
The review is conducted by UNICEF Pacific and the Pacific Regional Inclusive Education Taskforce.
UNICEF Pacific’s Chief of Education Programme Anna Smeby said the biggest challenge to inclusive education in the Pacific is limited access or children living in poor housing.
“We know that challenges can be in physical access, teaching approaches and availability of extra support, and it can be in the inclusiveness of the environment which means the infrastructure, but also social and emotionally whether it is a welcoming environment,” she said.
“Improving policy for inclusive education, building and strengthening to adapt and differentiate instruction, the resource in classroom so that they have the resources they need and improving school infrastructure, bringing inclusive education leaves us to learn from each other both the shared challenges and the promising practices.
Vulnerable groups
“Vulnerable groups include learners with a disability or some sort of impairment, commonly students in remote places who do not have access to full-cycle schooling and students who have missed earlier learning but also gifted and talented students that need additional support in different ways,” Smeby said.
The collaboration between the 15 countries, regional partners, and the Pacific Inclusive Education Taskforce, supports Sustainable Development Goal 4 to achieve quality education for all and to build a pathway for all children to a productive and healthy adulthood.
UNICEF Pacific’s Deputy Representative Roshni Basu said countries needed to include the review’s recommendations into its policies urgently.
“UNICEF is committed to ensure that all children of our Pacific shores are able to enjoy their right to inclusive, and of course quality, education.
I urge all countries to maximise effort and commitment to translate the review findings into concrete investments for inclusive education.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Australia is preparing to make substantial investments in the assets, facilities and services that support research and innovation.
An expert working group, led by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, is currently guiding the development of a roadmap to identify Australia’s research infrastructure needs and priorities for the next five to ten years. The Australian Government will invest $4 billion in national research infrastructure by 2028-29 as part of its long-term commitment to the research sector.
But why do we need such major investments in a country with a relatively small population? The answer is that whilst these things are expensive to build and maintain – they are essential to our future innovation and economy as a nation.
Collectively known as national research infrastructure, such advanced capability means we can explore and use particle and nuclear physics; discover the universe; read genomes and visualise living tissue; store and access massive amounts of data and communicate with the world; survey landscapes, ecosystems and the marine world; visualise crop productivity and screen for biosecurity; support human health and translate medical research; understand and predict our weather and climate; and manage and plan our future communities to keep them safe and our industries productive.
Australia’s research infrastructure is always operating in the background, its work often remains unseen and unnoticed. Importantly, this infrastructure is flexible – as evidenced by the vital role played by our national research infrastructure in supporting Australia’s recovery from events like bushfires, the COVID-19 pandemic and recent cyber-attacks – making it possible for Australia to quickly adapt and respond to major unplanned incidents.
Author, Professor Andy Lowe of the University of Adelaide
Australia’s research infrastructure is typically hosted by publicly funded research agencies across the country. This infrastructure provides tremendous benefit to Australians by enabling and supporting strategic national-scale and collaborative equipment, resources and experts, all of which enable Australia’s researchers to address key national and global challenges quickly and effectively.
Australia’s research infrastructure is essential if our researchers are to generate knowledge and products that have real impact. The facilities that resulted from the 2016 Roadmap currently employ 1400 highly skilled technical staff and support 65,000 industry, higher education and government researchers, as well as a further 12,000 international researchers. The data generated are used by millions more across all sectors. Our research infrastructure supports and develops the broad range of fundamental (basic) and applied research that we need to advance through innovation, as well as supporting its commercialisation.
This infrastructure strategically aligns with and helps deliver on our nation’s strategic research priorities, from food, soil and water, through transport, cybersecurity, energy, resources and advanced manufacturing to bioinformatics, health and advanced physics.
As Australia’s former Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel said, “After my appointment in 2016, my eyes were opened to the incredible resources that support the work of the Australian research system. We just couldn’t do the work that we do in so many fields, such as environmental research, astronomy and health, and make the gains that we do, and have the impact that we do, without these facilities and mechanisms.”
Towards the Sustainable Development Goals
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to support global endeavors towards a more sustainable and prosperous future. Australia is committed to achieving this agenda and our national research infrastructure provides essential tools to support our efforts.
Our ability to harness the potential of research facilities was highlighted during the 2019-20 bushfire season and demonstrates how we are working to address Goal 15 – Life on Land. Almost all of the Research Infrastructure facilities mobilised resources to support modelling and predictions, monitoring the fires and human health or have subsequently been involved in recovery or future preparedness efforts.
In one example, The Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), Atlas for Living Australia (ALA), the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility and Bioplatforms Australia rapidly deployed resources and capability to enable environmental surveillance and biodiversity protection. Collaborations and contributions have continued even after the fires were finally extinguished. There are also continuing industry collaborations, such as with the wine industry to assess the quality of wine vintages affected by smoke taint.
Ongoing activity by the ALA, TERN and EcoCommons (supported by the Australian Research Data Commons) enables researchers, in concert with the public, to track the continuing impact of the fires on biodiversity and species distribution.
In addition, TERN worked with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization to trial a new method to assess bushfire-affected areas. The partnership involves the collection of high-resolution satellite imagery of field sites. Researchers can use this data to ‘virtually’ visit the sites before and after the bushfires and better determine fire severity.
Other examples of how Australia’s national research infrastructure supports our efforts to meet the Sustainable Development Goals include: the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility which is enabling innovation in plant and agricultural science to accelerate the development of new crop varieties that can grow and produce food and fibre in changing climatic conditions, and helping drive our nation towards meeting the commitments of Goal 2 – Zero Hunger:Australia is considered a global leader in national research infrastructure for studying, monitoring and managing our marine estate. The infrastructure in the Integrated Marine Observing System provides capacity to study, understand and manage the marine estate in new ways and is seen as an example of best practice by UNESCO’s Ocean Best Practice initiative, and is delivering on Goals 13 – Climate Action and 14 – Life Below Water.
The unified action of the facilities to some global challenges has been highlighted by our national coordinated response to the recent COVID19 pandemic, and was featured in a recent article by the Australian Academy of Science.
Almost all of the National Research Infrastructure facilities work across a number of the SDGs. For example, AuScope is working to understand how the earth’s crust can help support our future sustainability. Food, water and environmental security issues will become more urgent as Australians place more demands on geological services. The need to audit Australia’s groundwater resource, extract geothermal resources, drive new mineral discoveries, transition to a low carbon economy and store waste products in the subsurface will require sophisticated characterisation of the earth’s crust and its dynamic stress state.
The future of Australia’s research infrastructure
The suite of current Australian research infrastructure is well supported by the Australian Government and its host partners, which include publicly funded research organisations. Short-term funding insecurity a few years ago sent ripples of uncertainty through the research and innovation sector. This led to a strategic framework, which has a 10-year outlook and incorporates the development and reassessment of the roadmap every five years. Long-term budgeting for NCRIS was identified in 2018 as a critical enabler of a trusted network of infrastructure.
The 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap laid out nine focus areas for Australia to maintain its position as a global leader in research and innovation. These focus areas highlighted the needs and requirements of Australia’s research and innovation communities, which included: digital data and eResearch platforms; platforms for humanities, arts and social science; characterisation, such as the physical, chemical and molecular properties of diverse materials; advanced fabrication and manufacturing; advanced physics and astronomy; Earth and environmental systems; biosecurity; complex biology; and therapeutic development.
The government responded to the roadmap by releasing a Research Infrastructure Investment Plan and provided, through budget forward estimates, commitments through to 2028-29.
Investments in research infrastructure have been supported by Liberal and Labor governments since 2006. This bipartisan approach has been crucial to Australia’s success in establishing and maintaining these globally leading capabilities.
The research system in Australia is well respected internationally. However, to remain relevant and at the global cutting edge, we must have processes in place that review the delivery and relevance of current investments and balance this with emerging technologies and priorities.
In announcing consultations around the 2021 National Infrastructure Roadmap consultations, in May this year, Minister for Education and Youth Alan Tudge said the 2021 Research Infrastructure Roadmap would continue to drive innovation and support Australia’s economic recovery.
“Our world-class science and research will continue to contribute to Australia’s response to the evolving challenges and opportunities we now face, and the roadmap will ensure our efforts are focussed on key areas. The roadmap will also support our research commercialisation agenda by identifying areas of opportunity at all stages of the research pipeline.”
Minister for Industry, Science and Technology Christian Porter said the roadmap would ensure Australia had access to the technologies needed to be at the forefront of global research and industry breakthroughs.
It is uncertain how much the landscape of Australian government funded national research infrastructure will change as a result of the 2021 Roadmap, but as Ian Griffiths, chief executive of the Australian National Fabrication Facility put it, “I believe that through applying ourselves to national problems and continuing to put Australia ahead in terms of research outputs we will prove our value and continue to be funded. Little needs to change other than perhaps an ability to be nimbler and work on the right things quickly.”
The Australian Government’s investment and development of new national research infrastructure demonstrate a continued commitment to providing effective and efficient Australian research capacity and support for evidence-based decision and policy making addressing all areas of society.
The extraordinary year, 2020, and our continuing economic uncertainty clearly demonstrate how our research infrastructure provides critical knowledge and responses in times of great and urgent need.
Acknowledgments
This feature article was developed with assistance from the Australian Academy of Science as part of the ‘Science for Australians’ series where experts are asked to shed light on how science benefits all Australians and how it can be used to inform policy. Editorial input was provided by Jana Phan and Rikke Andersen, and content provided by Miles Apperley, Tracy Baylis, Amanda Caldwell, Michael Dobbie, Tom Eddershaw, Cass Erbs, Alan Finkel, Andrew Gilbert, Ian Griffiths, Michelle Heupel, Rosie Hicks, Jane Hunter, Emma Joughin, Beryl Morris, Stuart Newman, Sarah Nisbet, Andrew Peele, Tim Rawling, Susie Robinson, Saba Salehi, Merran Smith, Sean Smith, Andrew Stuchbery, Maree Trovato, Jenny Whiting, Andre Zerger.
Conflict of interest declaration: Professor Andy Lowe is a member of the Advisory Board of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN)
Professor Andy Lowe is Director of the Food Innovation Theme in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Adelaide. He is a member of the South Australian Government’s AgTech Advisory Group, and a member of the Global Table Advisory Group.
3Mins Read Togetherband, the nonprofit campaign developed by British sustainable accessories label Bottletop, has debuted its first 100% recycled loungewear collection. Launched earlier this month on Global Recycling Day, the new gender-free Togetherwear line features sweatshirts, hoodies and tees made from recycled organic cotton and recovered plastic bottles, and is designed to engage people all over the […]
3Mins Read Brazilian startup Fazenda Futuro, also known as Future Farm, has launched a new plant-based patty dubbed the Futuro Burger 2030, which is not only better tasting, but has an improved nutritional profile with lower levels of sodium and fat. Named as an ode to the 2030 deadline to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the […]
The virus has been used as a pretext in many countries to crush dissent, criminalise freedoms and silence reporting
António Guterres is secretary general of the United Nations
From the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic almost one year ago, it was clear that our world faced far more than a public health emergency. The biggest international crisis in generations quickly morphed into an economic and social crisis. One year on, another stark fact is tragically evident: our world is facing a pandemic of human rights abuses.
Covid-19 has deepened preexisting divides, vulnerabilities and inequalities, and opened up new fractures, including faultlines in human rights. The pandemic has revealed the interconnectedness of our human family – and of the full spectrum of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social. When any one of these rights is under attack, others are at risk.
The virus has thrived because poverty, discrimination, the destruction of our natural environment and other human rights failures have created enormous fragilities in our societies
It has become obvious as this Covid-19 pandemic wears on that transport is being repositioned – both in our minds and our lives. Changeable travel restrictions and new virus strains are reshaping our mobility psychology. Despite the roll out of viable vaccines, any return to normal for the foreseeable future will involve more work from home, more time spent locally, less socialising outside the household and fewer trips for work and pleasure. In short, excepting those for whom commuting is not a choice, the future of urban mobility is clearly going somewhat smaller.
A silver lining in this is that transport planners and journalists are now writing enthusiastically about ‘15-minute cities’, where people can live more fully and sustainably, close to home. This solution is exciting and necessary for many reasons. Yet experience shows that turning this vision of sustainable local life into a reality is not so easy – particularly in cities largely designed for cars. The complex machinery of land use and transport policy is hard to rewire. Meaningful change requires new kinds of cooperation and engagement and, let’s face it, a certain rebalancing of economic, social and environmental priorities.
Despite the disruption and appeal of new mobility and Mobility as a Service, these tech-driven innovations are not getting to the heart of the issue.
Now, more than ever, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a roadmap for this recalibration. Yet for many reasons, we see transport and planning professionals struggle to translate the SDGs into specific, community-based change. Despite the disruption and appeal of new mobility and Mobility as a Service, these tech-driven innovations are not getting to the heart of the issue.
So, how do we bridge this gap between aspiration and real sustainable local living?
Transport Infrastructure Ireland, one of Ireland’s key national transport agencies, recently issued a brave and useful answer – study women’s travel needs. Why? Because historically women have lived and moved more locally, especially if they have children. This is because gender is the single biggest organising feature worldwide, and a major factor in travel behaviour (see ITF work on Gender in Transport | ITF (itf-oecd.org)). Women do the large majority of local trips for the purposes of caring for and educating others. They play a profound role in shaping intergenerational mobility choices. Their mobility needs – often centred around local safety, health and community facilities – and travel with dependants provide us with a roadmap to real and functioning 15-minute cities.
The research studyTravelling in a Woman’s Shoes: Understanding Women’s Travel Needs in Ireland to Inform the Future of Sustainable Transport Policy and Design shows us that understanding car dependency, modal shift and a smaller scale travel landscape is about understanding everyday life. It illustrates that, when designing and integrating mobility solutions and land use policy, we need to consider that people are situated with families, gendered roles, fears, joys and risk appetites. Delivering sustainable mobility in the post-pandemic future is about unpacking these situations. While research was conducted just prior to the global pandemic, the insights have even greater resonance today as people struggle to trust shared transport.
As Amanda told the researchers: “No one taught me how to cycle on the road – I wish someone would teach me now… I hope my son grows up to be confident enough to cycle on the road.”
The everyday stories of women take us beyond the rhetoric about inclusion and community.
The everyday stories of women take us beyond the rhetoric about inclusion and community, introducing voices into the transport discussion that are absent from consultation. These poignant and candid snapshots of everyday life provide the starting point for a next wave of innovation.
For example, Nathalie told the study that “It’s easier to have a car with a baby, you can just put him in his car seat and be done with it while Siobhan, 20 years after being attacked by three men in a car park while eight months pregnant, was still nervous about “certain places I wouldn’t walk to for no rational reason at all. There are just alarm bells going off”. Karen noted the “freedom and independence that driving gives you, and the reassurance of knowing that the car is there in case you get a call saying the kids need to get picked up” while Lucy said that she was concerned about fatigue if she walked.
Designing for women is often about things that would be labelled nice-to-have by current design standards (or simply not thought of at all) – but which are the very things that foster a lifetime of confident and loyal sustainable transport use.
Designing for women often fosters a lifetime of confident and loyal sustainable transport use.
It could be more thoughtful mobility near health services; child-size toilet facilities so that kids don’t fall into adult public toilets; safe cycle paths going places that kids need to go; a convivial night-time coffee stand and good lighting at the tram stop, ensuring women feel safer; services and infrastructure that link up the creche, local doctor, library, arts precinct, fruit and veg market and perhaps after-school swimming. If these things don’t exist locally, it could be partnering across traditional silos to create them. Reimagining data to tell us about people’s situations; education for everyone working in the mobility space about the long-lasting trauma that can flow from women’s unsafe mobility experiences – for them and their families; new ways to involve the community in local transport solutions – to name just a few.
Travelling in a Woman’s Shoes is a timely study that holds the clues to designing mobility for resilient local cities, which is in many ways the new priority for all of us.
