Climate financing needs an intersectional gendered perspective to increase its effectiveness and maximise social benefits
Image Source: Getty
Climate financing has been dubbed the ‘great enabler of climate action,’ yet there is a clear consensus on the inefficiency of current fund allocation and utilisation systems as they fail to optimise social benefits. Given the heightened urgency that the climate crisis warrants, leaving women out of climate discourse is a step in the opposite direction. Given their contributing capacity towards mitigation and adaptation efforts, systematic inclusivity is an imperative factor for increasing effectiveness. Thus, establishing Gender Responsive Climate Financing (GRCF) as a normative practice rather than a welcome addition is a consequential response to the efficiency problem. This acknowledgement has been offered up by all major organisations in the climate space. UN Climate Change Deputy Executive Secretary has recognised GRCF as not just the “right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do.” Nonetheless, execution has been sub-par, admittedly due to the knowledge and measurement gap that continues to persist through various levels of climate initiatives. To utilise GRCF, a closer look at the externalities and private benefits caused by gender-responsive financing is needed. Further, more sophisticated measurement and analysis techniques are required to explore its role as an efficiency booster. This inclusion’s effect on social benefits and its potential for improvement is the focus of this discussion.
Establishing Gender Responsive Climate Financing (GRCF) as a normative practice rather than a welcome addition is a consequential response to the efficiency problem.
Leveraging climate financing to maximise social benefit requires an acute understanding of the impact it can have on its constituents. As social benefit encompasses both private benefits and net positive spillovers, an increase in either is directly related to higher social benefits. If climate initiatives are truly aiming at enlarging the social benefit pocket, both of these aspects need to be enhanced.
A conversation around maximising private benefit must first address the deficiency in delineation and execution. Literature on the efficacy of climate financing argues for the use of gender-responsive policies to optimise the efficiency of outcomes. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) report discusses doubling adaptation finances and emphasises that the inadequate representation of women and other vulnerable groups is a leading factor in the ineffectiveness of climate finance. For example, though women in Sub-Saharan Africa are the primary agricultural producers (up to 80 percent), they are systematically excluded from consultations since they rarely own the land they work on. Thus, initiatives do not capture the experiences of and issues faced by a majority of the population affected by climate change. Being incognisant of the gender dynamics in food production directly diminishes the effectiveness of any agricultural intervention led in these regions. The formulation of a climate financing policy thus needs to be done through a gendered lens to minimise inefficacious climate outcomes and boost private and social benefits.
Though women in Sub-Saharan Africa are the primary agricultural producers (up to 80 percent), they are systematically excluded from consultations since they rarely own the land they work on.
Another aspect of widening social benefit is anticipating and controlling the spillovers. The aims and focuses of climate financing initiatives can acutely determine the nature of the spillover that it has on society. In the case of climate activism, a net positive externality is usually anticipated and presumed; however, negative externalities are not uncommon when inclusivity is not acknowledged as a foundational requisite to climate policy.
Financing initiatives that intend to utilise the experiences and expertise of women in mitigation and adaptation efforts can actively negate inequalities that are exacerbated by climate change. Further, the ubiquitous inclusion of women can result in an overall recession in gender-normative culture and improved financial stability for women, thus producing welfare gains. Moreover, as normative culture subsides, the added contribution made by women to society raises the overall social benefit further. However, these positive externalities can only be availed if they are internalised by incorporating inclusive perspectives in every stratum of climate financing. Adaptation Fund’s work in West Bengal aimed at developing resilience against climate change is a fundamental example of such internalisation. Addressing the unequal effect of erratic rains on women (who are typically in charge of water and food supply), the Adaptation Fund has mobilised women’s mitigation/survival strategies by placing them in leadership roles to help re-introduce the concept of seed banks to their villages, encouraging sustainability and self-reliance. With strong female communities and self-help groups running the initiative, the positive externality of greater financial and economic stability for women has been internalised. Without such active gender participation, these positive spillovers would likely have been forgone.
Financing initiatives that intend to utilise the experiences and expertise of women in mitigation and adaptation efforts can actively negate inequalities that are exacerbated by climate change.
The absence of such overt inclusion of women at different intersections of society can even cause negative spillovers. For example, the gender-blind approach currently adopted by some urban policies around climate resilience fails to recognise issues such as women’s unpaid work, their inadequate involvement in decision-making, lower pay for women due to post-disaster relocation and more, leaving women to face financial instability and a lack of formal employment opportunities. Such climate policy aggravates the adverse ramifications of climate change, inducing net negative externalities.
Thus, not only can harnessing gender as an intersectional and integrated perspective allow climate finance to increase social benefit by creating net positive externalities and garnering higher private benefits, but it can also minimise the negative externalities potentially caused by ignoring the role that gender plays in climate issues.
Given these consequences, global financing establishments have been working towards initiating and improving gender integration policies and action plans over the last decade. However, further room for improvement has not gone unnoticed. UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation’s synthesis report underscores the need for a greater congruence between climate and socioeconomic policy, the inclusion of diverse perspectives at all stages of decision-making, and financing and budgeting targeted towards vulnerable individuals.
Project-specific statistics that measure granular details are key to understanding the demographics that can facilitate the conversion of intended targets to observed outcomes.
Among others, a major shortfall reported by almost all major reviews has been the ineptness of current data collection and usage methods. These shortcomings are visible in the absence of pronounced data collection and reporting in both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Though there are intended metrics provided, produced outcomes are rarely reported in yearly scorecards. For example, the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) 2023 monitoring report mentions the importance of reporting extensive sex-disaggregated data and yet GEF’s 2023 scorecard only reports two metrics: the percentage of projects that considered gender issues in ‘initial stages’ and percentages of ‘anticipated’ beneficiaries by gender. These metrics alone fail to study the outcome-based impact that is observed. Project-specific statistics that measure granular details are key to understanding the demographics that can facilitate the conversion of intended targets to observed outcomes.
Further, post-data collection analysis currently does not report on causal inferences that inform our understanding of the significance and intensity of the relationship between gender and climate outcomes. Such analysis would allow us to observe each gender’s proficiency in different aspects of financing activities, thus mobilising the skills of stakeholders more efficiently. Without causal inferences, valuable information will be lost, along with the loss of an opportunity to augment the budgeting, delineation and administration of climate initiatives. These conclusions can only be determined through a causal framework. Employing such monitoring and reporting strategies can encourage the creation of case-specific and inclusive climate policy.
Thus, a better framework of assessment is overdue, one that includes statistics that measure proposed and observed outcomes through a gendered lens, keeping in mind changes in social dynamics, vulnerabilities and risks. In the absence of conclusive reporting, gender cannot be recognised as a requisite for optimum climate outcomes. Since the need for holistic integration within monitoring is imperative to maximise the potential social benefit, gender-responsive policies are essential and imminent.
Diya Shah is a Research Intern at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
