Gender Climate and Media
Raising Gender Issues in Climate Policy
Gender is firmly anchored in the international climate debate, but raising gender issues in climate policy remains a challenge. We must remember that gender issues concern not just women, but all of us.
By Gotelind Alber
In recent years, media attention to the link between climate change and gender equality has increased as a result of the growing prominence of the issue in the international climate debate.
A number of provisions on gender have been adopted such as the commitment in the preamble of the Paris Agreement from 2015 to respect, promote and consider gender equality and women’s empowerment when taking action to address climate change.
There is gender language in a large number of previous decisions of the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), mainly on climate finance, adaptation, technology and capacity building. To take the issue forward, a work programme on gender was adopted in 2014, and a gender action plan in 2017, both of which were enhanced in 2019.
An issue which is not a tough negotiating topic, but is of particular interest here, is ‘Action for Climate Empowerment‘ (ACE). Its six elements - education, public awareness, training, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation - are critical to ensuring climate literacy among policy makers and the general public. This is a prerequisite for preparing the ground for the major transformation of our societies and the transition of our economies that we need to combat climate change.
At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, an ACE work programme was adopted, followed one year later by an action plan focusing on short-term concrete activities. This action plan states that it should be implemented in an inclusive, intergenerational and gender-responsive manner, and, as in the Paris Agreement, the integration of ACE-related actions into the development and implementation of national climate policies, plans, strategies and action should respect, promote and consider, inter alia, gender equality and women’s empowerment. Further details on how to implement the action plan were, however, not agreed at the recent COP28 in Dubai, but were postponed to the next session. There were also no new developments on the gender action plan, although it would have been useful to start discussing its renewal due in 2024.
Despite the slow progress in negotiations, it can be concluded that gender is firmly anchored in the international climate debate, and the issue was substantially advanced since the UNFCCC entered into force in 1995, which completely ignored the gender and social aspects of climate change.
Simplistic gender narratives
In climate negotiations as well as in the media, we see simplistic gender narratives and stereotypes. A common perception is that gender issues concern only women, and in particular women in the Global South, ignoring the role of masculinity and overlooking persistent gender inequality in high-income countries.
Gender norms and stereotypes are effective all over the world. Moreover, gender equality is not just a women’s issue. It is also about harmful masculinities, including contributions to climate change, concerns and attitudes. There is evidence that climate denial is a phenomenon particularly prevalent among dominant and powerful men, that male behaviour, for example in relation to diet and mobility, leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions, and that male-dominated decision-making tends to ignore women’s everyday needs.
Limiting the gender debate to the question of women’s participation and a better gender balance in decision-making is another pitfall. It is true that all genders have the right to be involved in decision-making at all levels from global negotiations to local councils. However, it is important to note that gender parity does not necessarily result in better gender-responsive policies, particularly in male-dominated institutional settings. Not all women are gender experts.
Another limited understanding of gender is the assumption that it is a binary concept, which ignores gender fluidity. Non-binary and transgender people are a contemporary reality and have existed in many cultures around the world since ancient times. Gender expression - how a person appears and behaves - can also fluctuate and break societal gender norms. Treating women and men as homogeneous groups is another shortcoming, as it overlooks intersectionality – the way in which multiple axes of discrimination overlap and reinforce each other, such as gender, caste, ‘race’ and class.
In the climate debate, a common gender myth is that women are either victims of the climate crisis in terms of vulnerability and/or are all ‘virtuous' climate champions per se. However, it is necessary to look at the underlying causes of vulnerability, such as women’s lower average income and wealth, or their unpaid care responsibilities, which limit their ability to cope with the impacts of climate change.
It then becomes clear that vulnerability is not inherent in women, but depends on their situation. For example, a woman who lives in an informal settlement and earns her living from work at home will be hard hit by a flood that washes away both her home and her job, exacerbating food insecurity for her family. Marginalised people in general, including LGBTQIA+ people, are more likely to be low income, live in disaster prone areas and lack resources and assistance.
On the ‘virtuous’ side, the underlying reasons for women’s less environmentally damaging behaviour should also be taken into account, rather than assuming that women are intrinsically connected to nature, and that they are inherently more caring and nurturing than men. It is not in their genes, but in social norms and roles.
Indirectly related to gender is another term often used in UNFCCC decisions, and also in popular narratives: the term ‘vulnerable groups’. This phrase suggests that so-called ‘normal’ people should not be as vulnerable as other groups. However, a closer look reveals that females, youth, elderly, migrants and BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ and persons with disabilities are a majority. In Europe, a rough estimation of adding up all these groups shows that they make up approximately 75% of the population. This is the norm, not the 25% of healthy, middle-aged men who hold much of the decision-making power.
Furthermore, gender is often reduced to the individual level, such as gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. However, it is even more important to explore the symbolic and structural levels in order to achieve lasting change and transformative effects towards gender equality. The symbolic level involves hierarchies rooted in norms and values, in which male characteristics and perspectives are seen as the norm and female ones as a deviation from the norm. As a result, characteristics and activities attributed to women are less valued.
At the structural level, gender norms are inscribed in organisations and social relations, as well as in institutional and material structures. For example, many cities still have a layout that reflects the gendered division of labour, with residential areas strictly separated from commercial and industrial areas. This leads to higher transport demand, and therefore higher greenhouse gas emissions than in layouts that abandon zoning and develop polycentric cities and mixed-use settlements.
How to report about gender and climate change
First, it is essential to use a broad and inclusive definition of gender that goes beyond binaries, and to avoid unfounded assumptions.
Affected gender groups and impacted communities whose voices are ignored or silenced need to be heard in order to give space to express their needs and claim their rights.
Gender equality is more than just gender parity. Gender parity is an important step and a prerequisite, but not sufficient for designing climate change mitigation and adaptation policies that respond to gendered preferences and needs. This also requires the involvement of gender experts and the use of gender mainstreaming approaches and tools.
Women in all their diversity and gender non-conforming people tend to be among the most vulnerable, particularly if they are poor and marginalised. But it is not sufficient to talk about poverty and call for pro-poor climate policies. Amongst the poor, women, especially in their traditional roles, suffer additional hardships, due to their care responsibilities, lower than average income, mobility constraints and gender-based violence that increases during and after disasters.
Beyond vulnerability and adaptation to the impacts of climate change, gender aspects of mitigation need to be addressed. Mitigation policies can have adverse effects on gender equality. For example, subsidies for clean cars only benefit car owners - the majority of whom are male - while public transport systems - essential for many women - remain underfunded. The ‘just transition’ from fossil fuels to a renewable energy economy often focuses on male workers and ignores female workers in the care and service sectors, perpetuating gendered power dynamics. The question is always, who benefits? Do climate policies prioritise accessible, affordable, clean and safe transport and energy services for all?
Finally, structural issues need to be taken into consideration, avoiding oversimplified explanations and reductive framing. For example, the vulnerability of women and LGBTQIA+ people to gender based violence in the aftermath of disasters is not simply a result of climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of disasters. Rather it is due to existing patriarchal structures that are exacerbated in times of crisis.