Background
During the 30th session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP 30, held in Belém, Brazil, from 10 to 21 November 2025, a new global framework was adopted to advance gender equality in climate action. Called the Belém Gender Action Plan (GAP) 2026-2034, it acknowledges the differential impact of climate change on women and girls, especially those from marginalised communities, including indigenous women, migrant women, women with disabilities, and places them at the centre of policies. The plan identifies five priority areas that aim to strengthen capacities and knowledge on gender, ensure promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women in implementation, improve monitoring of gender-related matters, promote meaningful participation and integration of gender principles in the stakeholder bodies.
It is an outcome of years of struggle for the recognition of gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) in climate discussions.
Addressing the problems
Given that climate and WASH are allied subjects that are explicitly interlinked, the Social Justice and Inclusion Innovation and Learning group of the One For All alliance organised a discussion to learn from the climate sector regarding steps taken towards GESI transformative climate systems. Rose Umutesi from Rwanda and Neha Saigal from India, working on disability rights, and gender in the climate sector, respectively, joined as experts to share their experiences.
The experts argued that there is a need to integrate equity and inclusion throughout climate interventions as those most impacted by climate change are never included in decision-making. Climate change is a problem of inequality and politics at two levels. At the macro level, the global discourse is shaped by high-income countries. The high-income countries are responsible for around half of all emissions since the Industrial Revolution, with a carbon footprint 100 times greater than that of the world’s poor nations combined. The low-income countries, on the other hand, despite having contributed far less to emissions, and deriving less than equal share in the benefits accruing from the exploitation of climate, bear the bigger brunt of the crisis. The exploitation and extraction of natural resources in low-income countries is continuing under neo-colonialism by high-income countries, generating a model that promotes aggregation and accumulation of a few. The climate crisis is a product of this economic model, with the severest consequences for those residing in low-income countries.
At the micro level, in low-income countries, neo-liberal climate governance, top-down climate solutions ignore the existing and unfair power dynamics in society, the community’s ability to adapt to the changes, and ignore the experiences and vast knowledge systems already held by the most vulnerable to climate change. In countries such as India, the socially marginalised are rendered most vulnerable to the climate crisis. Their vulnerabilities are shaped by a lack of access to resources, information, assets and choices, which are determined by existing harmful power relationships and structures that shape the social, cultural, economic and political context. Women, especially women of certain groups – based on their occupation, caste location – are the most affected by the climate crisis, in every aspect of their life including care work, health, work force, and participation. The differential impact exacerbates the inequality which they face in society. The differentiated vulnerability affects their capacity to adapt or change. The solutions offered by scientists and policy makers, however, push solutions that do not address people’s vulnerability, which in turn then gets compounded.
Equity and inclusion are critical in climate discussions to ensure meaningful and effective responses to climate change. It is required to break the systemic barriers that individuals face in accessing emergency resources as well as in day-to-day life. Inclusion of marginalised groups in decision-making is also an opportunity: it can provide innovative solutions (such as inclusive infrastructure), further community resilience, and result in economic development. Through their caregiving roles and intimate stewardship of local ecosystems, women, indigenous and other marginalised groups, hold very unique experiences and knowledge of natural resources that can critically enhance planning and decision-making. “Incorporating… inclusion ensures climate solutions are comprehensive, equitable, and effective for everyone (Rose Umutesi, during her presentation).”
Solutions
But how does one achieve inclusion in climate discussions? Some of the strategies shared by the speakers include inclusive planning that recognises marginalised groups as rights holders and ensures their representation in decision-making spaces such as national adaptation committees. Further, partnering with organisations representing marginalised groups (such as Organisations of Persons with Disabilities, OPDs) as equals, and co-designing programmes to address specific needs. Additionally, investments should be intentionally made to create an enabling environment to facilitate participation, for example by providing accessible communication, in the community’s language, or in sign language or braille, and accessible infrastructure. Furthermore, there is need for dedicated resources to build capacities of people from marginalised communities to enable them to participate meaningfully in platforms.
Neha Saigal puts forth a Gender-Transformative Climate Framework that she co-developed. This framework, she argues, describes root causes of gendered climate impacts and outlines potential interventions that focus on gender equality and justice as a pathway to change. Developed using the methodology of ‘active listening’ to different groups of women across India, and experts working with women’s groups, this framework addresses the complexities of how gender intersects with the climate crisis.
She argues, as per this framework, mitigation, adaptation, and resilience are not separately existing interventions but one, driven by women most affected. The relevance of these ‘western’ terminologies ceases to exist in practice; when an indigenous woman is implementing an intervention, she does not think of segregating or categorising the interventions but simply does what is required. Neha Saigal further argues that the framework addresses the inequities of capitalist economies that have been subsidised by women’s unpaid and underpaid work. It shifts power to cooperatives, micro and small industries, and social enterprises, which are typically led by women.
Conclusion
The speakers argue that WASH is a climate issue. “The climate crisis has worsened water security, degraded water systems, disrupted WASH infrastructure but also deepened social injustices reminding us that we cannot separate the social from the ecological (Neha Saigal, during her presentation).”
The discussion covered a combination of tangible and intangible indicators to measure the impact of such interventions, from percentage of people from marginalised communities involved in decisions, budgets allocated and utilised on making spaces accessible to participatory feedback surveys to understand if the processes followed were just, or, through personal or community narratives of agency and self-determination. The power of stories to measure impact, not just quantitative data, was stressed in the discussion.
As the way forward, the speakers shared that policies of inclusion and equity must be promoted and implemented, collaboration with organisations representing marginalised groups sought, and their agency and leadership prioritised. Genuine listening, empowering and encouraging, and utilising the knowledge of people belonging to marginalised communities, they argued, can help find solutions to the climate problem.