No matter what situation you find yourself in, gender* likely influences how you experience it.
The climate crisis, for example, will affect all of us in one way or another, yet women often feel the effects of climate change more acutely. Similarly, (gender) discrimination can result in greater exposure to corruption and can mean women are disproportionately affected by it and prevented from challenging corrupt actions because of their limited access to resources.
Taking the climate crisis and corruption separately, the findings are straightforward: because of gender inequality, women suffer more than men under similar circumstances. However, what happens when we bring these issues together and explore their interconnectedness remains to be seen.
How do highly corrupt environments affect how people of different genders adjust to climate change or how they intervene to fight against it? What happens to women when climate projects are not delivered in full or at all when funds are mismanaged? And how does the climate crisis impact those who already have limited access to resources such as land because of corrupt practices?
Transparency International is looking for ways to ensure gender is not only acknowledged but actively prioritised in all climate efforts, bringing benefits to people and the planet.
Here’s what we found so far:
Prioritising the inclusion of women in the entire climate intervention process
The sheer amount of hundreds of billions of dollars invested in climate change mitigation and adaptation programmes create an environment ripe for corruption. What’s more, the interventions that do get funded and effectively implemented don’t always consider the needs of different groups, exacerbating existing inequalities and missing the people most in need of support.
According to Transparency International Maldives, discrimination against women often permeates the climate intervention process, from planning and design to implementation and evaluation. Government and regulatory institutions are dominated by men, leading to inequality in the opportunities available to women to participate in decision-making forums. Existing gender biases in community consultation processes further limit women’s active involvement in relevant discussions. It is not that women don’t have the knowledge or the will to take participate; they are just not listened to.
And in the case of grievance mechanisms and gender indicators, our colleagues in the Maldives noted that they only find their way into projects when requested by donors. A climate expert in the country put it this way:
The women who speak out on climate issues in the Maldives are hyper-aware of the climate threat they face. They are also ahead of the curve in terms of confidence, leadership, and knowledge of the subject matter. The main reason climate project formulation and implementation are so poor is the fact that the (already tokenistic) public consultation process is performed as a checkbox exercise and often excludes women at the design stage. It simply comes down to providing women with a safe space to express their opinions and concerns and also incorporating their feedback.
