Despite evidence of women’s roles and expertise in the management of water, energy, food, and the environment (WEFE), the WEFE literature is almost silent on gender issues. In the context of climate change, achieving more inclusive management of natural resources is vital; yet women continue to be underrepresented as professionals in WEFE sectors, and largely absent in leadership positions. Using Nepal as a case study, this paper explores the enduring barriers to their exclusion, and entry points for greater equity among professionals in these sectors. To do so, we draw on key informant interviews with 34 male and 31 women professionals from government, civil society, non-governmental organizations and consultants, as well as a roundtable discussion with 20 women professionals specifically focused on gender barriers in these sectors in Nepal. Drawing on Gaventa (2006)’s power cube, this paper examines how power dynamics within and between the public and the private spheres create a web of barriers that conflate to sideline women professionals. While women have reached the “closed space” as defined by Gaventa (i.e., are recruited to professional positions in WEFE sectors), different sources of “hidden” and “invisible” power at play in the public and private spheres continue to limit their participation, influence and decision-making. We argue that the continued marginalization of women professionals calls for a focus on understanding the power and intersectionality dynamics that sustain exclusion. This focus is critical for the development of strategies to increase the voice and leadership of women professionals in WEFE decision-making.

Despite evidence of women’s roles and expertise in the management of water, energy, food, and the environment (WEFE), the WEFE literature is almost silent on gender issues. In the context of climate change, achieving more inclusive management of natural resources is vital; yet women continue to be underrepresented as professionals in WEFE sectors, and largely absent in leadership positions. Using Nepal as a case study, this paper explores the enduring barriers to their exclusion, and entry points for greater equity among professionals in these sectors. To do so, we draw on key informant interviews with 34 male and 31 women professionals from government, civil society, non-governmental organizations and consultants, as well as a roundtable discussion with 20 women professionals specifically focused on gender barriers in these sectors in Nepal. Drawing on Gaventa (2006)’s power cube, this paper examines how power dynamics within and between the public and the private spheres create a web of barriers that conflate to sideline women professionals. While women have reached the “closed space” as defined by Gaventa (i.e., are recruited to professional positions in WEFE sectors), different sources of “hidden” and “invisible” power at play in the public and private spheres continue to limit their participation, influence and decision-making. We argue that the continued marginalization of women professionals calls for a focus on understanding the power and intersectionality dynamics that sustain exclusion. This focus is critical for the development of strategies to increase the voice and leadership of women professionals in WEFE decision-making.

The original mandate of the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights said that he should „develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments.‟ Since then, tools for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) have developed by different actors. This article reviews two such tools, both of which are up for revision in 2010. One is by the International Finance Corporation, International Business Leaders Forum and Global Compact, the other by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. The article finds that substantive human rights and human rights principles are well understood by the former, while the latter seems to have an inadequate understanding of crucial human rights principles, such as non-discrimination, but the latter has some procedural strengths as compared to the former.