The WEDO team is headed to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, to advocate for systemic, cohesive, and gender responsive climate policy decisions across the thematic negotiation items within the UNFCCC.
The WEDO team is headed to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, to advocate for systemic, cohesive, and gender responsive climate policy decisions across the thematic negotiation items within the UNFCCC.
In the latest “What’s at Stake” video, Jahanara Saeed, Manager of Programs at WEDO, speaks with key members of the WEDO delegation about what they expect from the Gender Equality, Just Transition, Climate Finance, and Adaptation negotiation items at COP30.
You can read the interview transcription, edited for length and clarity, below.
Bridget Burns, WEDO’s Executive Director:
This is the first COP to be held in the heart of the Amazon, providing an incredible opportunity to center the lived realities of folks in the middle of one of our most incredible areas of natural resources. One of those areas that is deeply under threat and one that is deeply connected to, particularly the lives and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. It’s also, though, a site of contestation where even the host country itself, which many hope will be a strong voice for Global South and global majority leadership in the climate negotiations, is continuing its own dependency and investment in fossil fuels, as are many countries.
We are now 10 years from the Paris Agreement. We are in a moment when countries are submitting their NDCs. Not only have not enough countries submitted their NDCs, but we also know that those nationally determined contributions show we are well off track from the promises of Paris, coupled with a very disappointing commitment last year [at COP29] to what is really needed in terms of mobilizing climate finance.
In that context, we know that many countries are shirking their responsibilities to climate action and shifting into climate denial. So a lot is riding on the kinds of conversations and solutions we can center on at this upcoming COP30.
Gender equality is also fiercely under attack around the world. And it is one of the items to be negotiated at COP 30: the renewed Gender Action Plan. At WEDO, we’ve been working with Parties over the course of the year to prepare ourselves for the backlash we might face and the threats to the rollback of agreed commitments on human rights and gender equality.
One message that I would share and leave folks with is that, for as bad as things feel in terms of regression and backtracking of commitments, many more Parties are deeply committed to standing up for gender equality, to holding the line on language around rights and equality, and to delivering a strong and ambitious outcome at COP 30, particularly on gender equality.
We see it as an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the intersectional dimensions of the climate crisis and develop effective, intersectional solutions. You’ll hear from other colleagues of our priorities around just transition and how a just transition can really deliver justice for people and planet as well as what we can do to advance our, obligations countries obligations around finance, and ensure that climate finance is truly accessible to those at the front lines whose solutions are ready to be scaled and replicated, and whose solutions are the only solutions that are truly sustainable, to challenging, this climate crisis.
As an organization, we see the challenges of engaging in multilateral advocacy at a time when fractures in multilateralism are deepening. The multilateral system is, of course, unjust in its framework and its structures in the beginning. And we, as feminists who engage in global policy-making, particularly in the climate change negotiations, are wide-eyed at the challenges of making change in that space.
And yet, we also understand that a crisis like climate change absolutely requires global solidarity. And we need frameworks that can center the voices of the countries most vulnerable to direct impacts.
We will be headed to COP30 to showcase the gender just climate solutions of women’s rights and feminist organizations around the world, of land defenders who are investing in regenerative agriculture and protecting their seeds and their lands and their forests, of women who are at the center of what an, energy transition looks like in their countries and in their communities, showcasing their voices, their leadership, and centering that advocacy.
We will continue to analyze how a just transition is not just about moving from one unequal system to another, but about the opportunity to really center an understanding of care, of investment in people and the planet, and of a better future for all.
Jahanara Saeed: Now that we have a bit of an overview of WEDO’s expectations for COP30, I am excited to be joined by Claudia Rubio, Coordinator of Programs at WEDO, and Co-Coordinator for the Gender Working Group of the Women and Gender Constituency.
Claudia, what does following gender equality in the UNFCCC mean, and how does that relate to gender and climate justice more broadly?
Claudia Rubio: In general, we have to understand that gender is this cross-cutting consideration, so I am going to speak today about the gender agenda item. This agenda item came to be after several years of advocacy from civil society, from feminist organizations, key Parties, and from the movement.
The whole concept of gender is cross-cutting across the different negotiation streams. It was this thing we saw where gender wasn’t being mainstreamed across the UNCCC, and the thing that really triggered it was that women’s participation has always been low within the UNCCC. Historically, we’ve tracked women’s participation, and we see that there’s never been more than, like, 35% for women and gender-diverse people within the UNFCCC.
After that, we had several decisions that kind of remarked on this lack of participation, and the fact that there were no women in constituted bodies either. Eventually, we came to the point of developing the Lima Work Program, which is the emblematic gender equality Work Program within the UNFCCC, and its Gender Action Plan, which is the implementable framework of the Lima Work Program.
Jahanara: For this year’s COP, what are we anticipating being discussed on gender equality, and what outcomes can we expect?
Claudia: I’m going to speak from the civil society standpoint. We’re negotiating this year’s [renewed] Gender Action Plan. As mentioned, this is the implementable framework of the Lima Work Program. This is a very important negotiation because this Gender Action Plan really drives forward gender-responsive climate action and serves as a coherence, an ambition mechanism. It collects all of these mandates and gives a driving force to catalyze gender-responsive climate action.
Let’s say that the expectations are varied. We’ve already had two iterations of the gender action plan, so this future iteration will be better. Maybe one of the worst things that could happen is that this iteration is a watered-down version of previous ones, because the whole point is that we’re evolving within the UNFCCC.
What we’re advocating for within the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC) is a flexible, coherent, intersectional, inclusive, measurable, and resourced GAP.
Jahanara: That was really helpful to understand all of what we’re hoping for from the GAP, and it sounds really ambitious. I can imagine there’s a lot at risk here, so what are some of the challenges and tensions that could risk that watered-down GAP that you were talking about, and what should we be worried about if the demands of the WGC and other feminist advocates aren’t being met?
Claudia: Yeah, that’s a good question. With this renewal, we had a clear roadmap for developing this Gender Action Plan that included two pieces. One was a workshop at SB62, and the other was an additional party-requested workshop at Africa Climate Week in Addis Ababa.
So, there have been Parties that have engaged constructively and collaboratively within this space. Civil society, and the Women and Gender Constituency, in particular, have played a very important role in pushing forward a progressive and robust agenda.
But there’s always the reality and possibility that other parties will come into the process, or into COP30, and derail all the progress that’s been made, not recognizing the validity and strength of this collaborative process that has been going on and throwing a wrench into the possible outcomes.
We have a chance with this GAP to really drive forward in an action-oriented manner. In other spaces, we’re protecting one word that indicates gender, or we’re protecting this word that leads to this action. But here, we really have a concrete set of activities, and that advocacy is much more specific. In a way, it’s more action-oriented advocacy, understanding the real impacts and demands on the ground. And then, I also think it’s important to highlight that the gender agenda item, in particular, has been significantly shaped by civil society. It has always gone hand in hand with this necessity to keep fortifying this human rights framework. This gender equality item has had a strong relationship with the Women and Gender Constituency. There’s a constructive, collaborative spirit that is essential to this negotiation. And I have faith that will lead to a very robust, enhanced Gender Action Plan.
Jahanara: We are now joined by Sinéad Magner, WEDO’s Coordinator of Policy and Programs and Co-Coordinator of the Just Transition Working Group of the Women and Gender Constituency.
Sinéad, what does following Just Transition in the UNFCCC actually mean, and how does it relate to gender and climate justice?
Sinéad Magner: The concept and term “Just Transition” was born out of the labor movements in the U.S. in the 1970s that were concerned about the impact that the phase-out of fossil fuels would have on jobs and livelihoods. It has since evolved into this broader call for systems change. To dismantle extractive, exploitative, and oppressive systems. And to make our societies fairer, to redress harm and relocate power in the hands of people and communities, and not billionaires or corporations or harmful sectors.
As feminists following this topic within the UNFCCC, we primarily follow the Just Transition Work Program negotiations, which is a pretty new work program born out of the COP27 decision and elaborated more at COP28 in Dubai.
We are grounding and shaping our feminist visions of a just transition, how we show up in those rooms on this structural approach, and how we reflect on power dynamics, both inside and outside the UNFCCC.
We think a lot about equity and justice in transitions that break colonial and imperial cycles, or chains of dependency, genocide, and extraction.
When we talk about work, we think, interrogate, and challenge people in the room to think about how we understand work. What is work? What is valued as work? What is recognized as work? Who is a worker? And we move from acknowledging all forms of work, which is important, to thinking about the material conditions needed to dismantle exploitative labor regimes. We talk about consent over lands and bodies, and we use planetary boundaries as a guiding framework.
This is separate from the idea of moving from so-called “dirty energy” to clean energy, and not thinking about all the other systems that will be impacted if we continue this trajectory, based on the relentless economic growth we’re on. And so, degrowth and thinking about harmful sectors beyond just one type of fuel are something we think a lot about. Degrowing harmful sectors and growing care, and moving towards societies and economies that are built on care. So, moving away from the reproduction of capital towards societies and economies built on care. And that is the vision that we try to bring into the room.
Jahanara: It sounds like a very meaty topic with a lot going on. So what is being discussed at COP30 on just transition, and what outcomes are expected?
Sinéad: So you’re correct. It’s a meaty discussion, and COP30 is gonna be a juicy one.
At COP30, we hope to finally take this work program out of discussion and dialogue, which is the shape it has taken. Unfortunately, at COP29 last year, we also didn’t have a decision, and civil society, feminists, Indigenous Peoples, workers, and environmental NGOs, youth and other popular movements know that we finally want the Just Transition Work program to start to deliver for communities and for people on the ground.
And so there is this just transition package that we want to deliver, and we currently have a draft text that is pretty decent in how it mirrors the demands coming from civil society.
One big call from civil society, and for many countries, is for the establishment of a global mechanism on just transition, or the Belém Action Mechanism, so this acronym of the BAM that people might start to… to hear, to hear about and see as… as COP, picks up pace. The idea of this is that this mechanism is an institutional arrangement within the UNFCCC, which may sound a little boring. Still, it’s to take all of this work that’s happening globally and just transition, and there is so much work happening, but not necessarily so much sense made of it. We see that there are lots of issues with… with just transition work that happens globally, like duplication of efforts, or struggles to access funding for projects, or kind of funding always being given to the same actors or institutions, because there’s no real view of all of the different types of work that is happening.
Jahanara: COP30 is a very critical moment for this particular topic, so what are the challenges and tensions that could risk weak outcomes? And if feminist advocates’ demands aren’t met?
Sinéad: Like many rooms, this is a political room, and it’s a contested room, and I think in these negotiations, you really see this north-south tension. And we might see the manifestation of that contestation in what’s included in the overall COP30 agenda, as well as in the Just Transition work. And some conversations are quite polarizing, which can suck up a lot of time and energy in the room as well, and that it’s very difficult right now for… to see alignment or to see bridging proposals and that kind of thing. So we’re seeing that contestation in this work program when Global North and Global South governments talk about how they envision what this work program should do, what the scope of the work should be, the governance, the structure, and the modalities. You know, there are, in many ways, very, very diverging views on what the work program needs to do, or needs to deliver on.
There are important pieces in this text about gender. For a long time, like I said at the start, feminists have been talking about, in these rooms, what is work and who are workers, and really emphasizing that if we’re going to talk about work, we need to talk about care work and ensure that care work, paid and unpaid, domestic work, that all of that is included. And finally, we have this included in the text. And this language around care work and informal workers for the first time in the UNFCCC, and we also have some other strong gender language in there, in the principles or the findings from the dialogues. Still, in all the work streams, gender backlash is an issue, and it’s an issue in this room, just like every other room.
Many would think that what we have to say on just transition, or of our vision of a world that is built on care, is to It’s lovely, but it’s too idealistic, or it’s radical, or it’s extreme, or, like, even that it’s impossible.
And I would agree that the shift we imagine is radical, and it requires us to reimagine our societies and economies entirely, and how we relate to each other as human beings. How we relate to nature, but the reality is that the change we envision is necessary if we are to secure a livable planet. And what is actually extreme is the world we are living in right now, where you see extreme injustice, extreme poverty, and extreme inequality. So, like it or not, the shift has to be an extreme one. And so feminist vision may be radical, but it is also necessary, and one thing that we must not accept is that it is impossible, because it’s not.
Jahanara: We are now joined by Tara Daniel, who is Associate Director of Policy at WEDO and Co-Coordinator of the Climate Finance Working Group of the Women and Gender Constituency.
Tara, what does following climate finance in the UNFCCC mean, and how does that relate to gender and climate justice?
Tara: Climate finance is fundamental to climate action. It’s the money, it’s the resources that we need, actually, to fulfill our climate ambitions. So, it’s intrinsically related to gender when we think about the necessity of tackling this climate crisis for achieving gender equality. Still, there are also so many ways in which we can shape how climate finance is flowing that can be more gender responsive or more feminist, considering who it’s flowing to, considering the difficulty of the access to finance, considering how it is prioritizing gender and social inclusion, or how it might be instead prioritizing top-down, market-based approaches, the business-as-usual initiatives that unfortunately have landed us exactly where we are in this crisis. So if we want to fund transformation, we have to talk about climate finance.
In the UNFCCC, what that means is following a variety of both specific agenda items that we’ll see at negotiation sessions, such as this upcoming COP30, as well as processes that are happening throughout the year, such as meetings of different climate funds that are linked to the UNFCCC. So, there’s many different aspects of what it can mean to follow climate finance, and different things in which people can specialize in order to really think about how we’re influencing where the money is going, and what that means about our theory of change for how this funding is ultimately going to fully address and truly, truly change the situation that we have with our current climate catastrophe.
Jahanara: It sounds like climate finance touches all of the work and all of the items being discussed, but I was curious, at COP30, what will be discussed on climate finance, and what outcomes are we expecting?
Tara: COP30 is following a big year. Last year was a finance COP, and we ended up with a new collective quantified goal set for 2035. This year, right before COP30, we have a report to review on how that goal can be scaled up to mobilize $1.3 trillion by 2035.
We’ll be looking at how that report will influence negotiations within the COP, particularly around the potential discussion of climate finance from developed to developing countries. That’s a climate finance obligation. And unfortunately, this obligation has not been fulfilled.
In any way, shape, or form, at the depth and the scale that it needs to be. We’re not seeing high-quality climate finance being provided. So, as we’re following up on this New Collective Quantified Goal, there’s a real push to discuss what that means for developed countries in terms of their commitment to providing climate finance. We also have a really key agenda item that’s been happening for several years, of workshops to really think about how we align all financial flows with the Paris Agreement and its goals. And we want to make sure that when we are having these discussions, that this is not a way to put further burdens on developing countries. But instead, to highlight how illicit financial flows, the debt burden, and unfair tax regimes have all been reducing the fiscal space for actually investing in climate resilience, climate mitigation, and in what we truly need to address the climate crisis.
In addition to the issues of providing climate finance and aligning financial flows, there’s a raft of periodic and/or annual issues being addressed that speak to different climate funds and the processes that govern them, as well as the overall technical understanding of climate finance. So, there will be something happening in climate finance every single day of COP across many different rooms, and we will see how we’re truly moving forward with the Paris Agreement to deliver on this new collective quantified goal and to align our broader financial flows with it.
Jahanara: I can imagine talking about money gets political very quickly, so what are the challenges and tensions that could risk weaker outcomes, and what’s the threat if feminist advocates’ demands aren’t being met?
Tara: You already hit on it in your question, Jay. It is political, so the biggest challenge is the lack of political will to deliver climate finance at the scale needed. And the quality needed to truly address the climate crisis.
And to truly deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement — that climate finance would be scaled up in accordance with the science and a growing understanding of the needs we now have 10 years into the Paris Agreement.
For this, the lack of political will is incredibly frustrating, because we get the sense that governments are prioritizing anything but the people on the planet, which are the things we need. To have fulfilled futures and to uphold human rights in our world. So, every time this is framed as a trade-off between investing in the economy and investing in people in a way that doesn’t tackle the climate crisis, it feels absurd. It feels like we are failing to put money at the root causes of so much of the inequality, so much of the injustice, so much of the human rights abuses and violations that we have within our world.
Investing in climate mitigation, investing in climate adaptation, and addressing the loss and damage we’re already seeing around the world is imperative if we want to really support human health, if we want to preserve our rich biological world and all the services it provides to help keep us healthy.
So we need to have a change in politics. And we are also hearing a lot, particularly this year, about the difficulties in this particular geopolitical climate and the uncertainty it raises for governments, particularly Global North governments, to provide that climate finance. But again, in these times of greater uncertainty and greater catastrophe. When we see the effects of climate change ravaging our world, that’s when investments become even more imperative.
In fact, climate finance is one of the key areas that can bring you closer to the work being done on the ground, as we discuss mechanisms for true direct access for grassroots groups and community-led and locally-led initiatives to initiatives led by Indigenous Peoples and organizations of people with disabilities.
This is a really tangible way to be thinking about how to do climate work, how to do climate action. And so it’s not necessarily about a bunch of spreadsheets or a bunch of equations that are far away from communities, but about asking how we can truly deliver climate finance to those communities.
Jahanara: We are now joined by Alex Gordon, WEDO’s Manager of Policy and Development and Co-Coordinator of the Adaptation Working Group of the Women and Gender Constituency.
Alex, what does it really mean to follow adaptation and resilience in the UNFCCC, and how does that relate to gender and climate justice?
Alex: Adaptation is a long-standing negotiation item within the UNFCCC; it’s one of those key areas where communities, governments, and policymakers have to come together, not just to discuss how we’re adapting to the climate crisis – that means putting in place processes and practices, and implementing some of those activities to adapt to the climate crisis for current impacts, as well as for future impacts. Adaptation includes many items from the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), National Adaptation Plans, Adaptation Committee, Adaptation Communications, and discussions around the implementing work of the Nairobi Work Programme, and Adaptation financing. The IPCC has talked about how gender exacerbates vulnerability, and how these inequities could be worsened if adaptation actions are not met and addressed to really address the sheer impact of the climate crisis at this point. So when we talk about adaptation and gender equality in the negotiations, they go hand in hand, because it’s well known that the impacts of climate change affect people differently. That’s not something we have to rehash; it’s well known. And when it comes to discussing gender and gender-responsive adaptation within the UNFCCC, it’s within agreed-upon language.
Jahanara: So, this is a real adaptation-heavy year. What is being discussed at COP30 on adaptation, and what do we expect to happen?
Alex: Yeah, so what’s at stake for COP30 when it comes to adaptation is many items, but in particular, operationalizing the global goal on adaptation. We’re 10 years past the Paris Agreement, and this is an opportunity in which there have been many work programs in place. We’re about to complete a second set of work programs in which mandated experts worked together to determine which indicators are globally relevant and measurable for adaptation actions worldwide. By adopting a set of ambitious indicators at COP30, we can actually measure global adaptation. It’s essential and feasible to adopt gender-responsive indicators within the Iterative Adaptation Cycle and other cross-cutting indicators within the dimensions, as well as the thematic targets.
Within this new set of Global Goal on Adaptation indicators, finance indicators should be able to measure any and all adaptation financing that is established at a national level. And so this means, within this indicator process, that there’s an opportunity to not just measure where adaptation financing is coming from the public level. Still, also where it’s falling short when it comes to private financing, and I think this also continues to help us prove the point that public and grants-based and non-debt-making finance is essential for adaptation action globally. We have a really strong opportunity to put that within the measured indicator process by adopting a set of indicators at COP30 that are ambitious and meet the scale.
My hope and excitement around COP30 is that folks recognize the importance of adaptation and of engaging in adaptation processes, policies, planning, and implementation, as well as monitoring, evaluation, and learning. Because in that way, when we’re talking about the importance of engaging non-party stakeholders when it comes to implementing these policies from the global to the national level.
Still, it’s really something that folks, especially within the feminist climate justice movement, have been working on for a very long time. It’s just about thinking about how we’re reframing, how we’re engaging in those spaces, and especially about following through to ensure we have an ambitious global goal on adaptation, an ambitious, measurable, transparent, grants-based financing commitment when it comes to adaptation financing.
We also have an opportunity to continue to be seen as experts in this space, and at least put as key [Non-Party Stakeholders] within decision text that they should engage with us, and that feminist civil socirty are the folks that are implementing many of the adaptation activities that need to be financed via grant-making mechanisms, existing mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund and other UNFCCC climate financing mechanisms that focus on adaptation.
Lastly, I really want to talk about disaggregation. I think gender disaggregation is important and is coming up in many negotiation topics within the UNFCCC. It’s essential when adopting a framework with indicators that measure a global goal and adaptation progress globally. And so I think that disaggregation needs to be clear, consistent, and, at a minimum, include gender and other cross-cutting considerations, as well as people-centered indicators within the current ambitious list of indicators. I think that we’ve talked a lot about age, Indigenuity, migrant status, race, class, and all these pieces. It’s important that the indicators include disaggregation in a very clear and consistent manner, so that we’re not having disaggregation highly on one part, but not on the others. And so, when it comes to gender-responsive adaptation, we really take a truly intersectional lens. It’s not “just add gender, just add sex and stir,” but rather that we need to have clear and consistent cohesive disaggregation across the people-centered indicators and the targets as they’ve been laid out within previous decision text.
Jahanara: What is something that folks misunderstand or should really appreciate when it comes to adaptation in the UNFCCC processes?
Alex: Adaptation could be a topic that is seen as misunderstood, because it could be seen as quite technical, but I think that is a misconception.
When we’re thinking about how we’re working within the UNFCCC system, and we are advocating for fair, just climate policies that can actually showcase the importance of community-centered solutions and gender-just climate solutions, we can’t leave behind the topic of adaptation and resilience. We can’t stay out of those rooms, even though folks think that they might be too technical, or when we’re talking about the indicator process or adaptation financing, or not quite understanding the importance of the room, but this is something that we do understand. It’s a reframing: just because the language of the UNFCCC might be saying one thing, it doesn’t mean you don’t necessarily understand it.
Resources
Support Our Work
Your donation provides us with the stable foundation we need to build the feminist future we’re working to realize.
Donate Today
