As the COP 30 climate summit convenes in Belém, Brazil, the gender-sensitive observer in me wonders: is this just another debating club where the Global South comes to veil its suffering, beg for cash, while the Global North nods and applauds—and then departs, having given little but thanks?
The Gendered Agenda: What’s on the Table
On 11 September 2025, the COP 30 Presidency published its Action Agenda, explicitly embedding a gender perspective across its six thematic axes (mitigation, finance, resilience, etc.). A flagship piece is Brazil’s Protocol for Supporting Women in Climate Emergencies, part of its Solution Acceleration Plan (PAS), aiming to prevent gender-based violence in disaster response, build safe spaces, redistribute care work, and promote women’s economic inclusion.
During Africa Climate Week (September 2025, Addis Ababa), women leaders pressed for simplified access to climate finance for grassroots women’s groups. On 10 November, the EU (joined by about 90 countries) issued a Global Statement on Gender Equality and Climate Action, calling for a bold, action-oriented Gender Action Plan (GAP) under UNFCCC to institutionalize intersectionality, inclusive participation, and gender-responsive funding.
Yet controversy looms: conservative states (e.g., Argentina, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Russia) are pushing to define “gender” in biologically binary terms—a move that risks excluding trans, non-binary people and erasing decades of inclusive policy gains. From the gender-justice activism side, GAGGA (Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action) is staging five side events in Belém, demanding direct, long-term funding to women-led climate organizations rather than short, top-down projects. Feminist funders like Mama Cash are calling for core, multi-year funding to locally led adaptation — not just one-off grants.
A Critical View: The North–South Dance
| Actor | What They Say | What Actually Changes (so far) |
| Global South delegates/women from vulnerable regions | Women bear disproportionate climate burdens; they want justice and money now. | They repeat stories of fetching water, heat stress, care burdens. In Belém, they lament that access to finance remains obstructed. |
| Global North (e.g., EU) | “Gender equality is central” – wants to mainstream gender across all climate policies. | Symbolically influential: the EU’s coalition signed the Global Statement, but real money flows toward existing bureaucracies instead of grassroots. |
| Donors / Philanthropies | “We must invest in climate-health research” | A promising $ 300 million has been pledged by a coalition (Rockefeller Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Gates, Bloomberg, IKEA). But this may still be cosmetic compared to the scale of loss and damage. |
It feels eerily familiar: the Global South brings its pain, the North listens, gestures sympathy—and then exits, enriched by political capital rather than real accountability.
Where the Money (Doesn’t) Truly Flow
Let’s put the spotlight on the financing architecture—and how gender justice is systematically marginalized.
- Green Climate Fund (GCF):
- On the opening day of COP 30, the GCF announced a record year: USD 3.26 billion committed in 2025. Over the past ten years, GCF has mobilized more than USD 19 billion (plus co-financing). According to its 2024 report, almost 50% of its beneficiaries are women, and gender assessments are mandatory—but the quality and impact of gender integration remain inconsistent. Critically, deep feminist experts note that few GCF windows explicitly channel funds to women-led, locally rooted women’s movements; the funds are often fragmented, short-term, and tied to performance metrics that don’t reflect women’s realities.
- Multilateral / Bilateral Funders:
- While the GCF is central, other multilateral development banks (MDBs) are also major actors: in 2024 they provided USD 137 billion in climate finance. However, much of this money flows as loans, not grants. Independent analysis highlights that adaptation finance often comes with debt burdens—especially for countries in the Global South. Through GAGGA, feminist movements are calling out precisely this: project-based grant finance only, with local leadership and long-term support.
- Philanthropic Funding:
- The Climate & Health Funders Coalition (Rockefeller, Wellcome, Gates, IKEA, etc.) pledged USD 300 million at COP 30 for climate-health research and implementation of the Belem Health Action Plan. This is laudable, especially for women (pregnant, elderly, outdoor workers) disproportionately exposed to heat, disease, and so-called “climate stigma.” Yet, these funds remain in philanthropy—not in domestic budgets or binding UN mechanisms. Their structure is still top-down, not necessarily feminist-led, and they risk sidelining systemic change in favour of technocratic fixes.
Gender Definition Row: Symbolic, but Dangerous
One of the most concerning moments so far: the fight over how to define gender. Conservative governments are pushing a restrictive definition (“biological sex”), threatening to exclude trans and non-binary groups. Feminist advocates warn that backsliding here undermines the very heart of gender-responsive climate action.
This is not just semantics. Defining gender narrowly threatens to erase the complex realities of those most vulnerable: women living in poverty, LGBTQ+ people, Indigenous communities. Without inclusive language, any action plan risks being exclusionary in practice—even if well-worded in theory.
Midway Assessment of COP 30
One must praise COP 30’s Action Agenda because it is more gender-aware than previous summits. The Belém Protocol (for women in climate emergencies) and the prominence of grassroots, women-led coalitions are breakthroughs. But a dangerous pattern persists—the Global South is voicing pain, but not transforming power. The North shows up to listen, make statements, and leave.
It’s just not proverbial rather a grim reality of all times that money matters, but perhaps what matters more is where and how it is being put by the multilateral organziations. While philanthropic pledges are encouraging, structural justice demands that multilateral climate finance be deeply gendered—both in design and disbursement. We need dedicated, long-term, feminist financing windows, not just token add-ons. While at the cost of repetition, it is equally important to note that if COP 30 fails to protect inclusive definitions of “gender,” then gender justice risks becoming hollow.
It is imperative to move forward on a balanced and liberal gender agenda; donors and multilateral funds must allocate at least 30% of adaptation finance to women-led organizations, with multi-year core grants. The COP 30 presidency should insist on inclusive language in its Gender Action Plan—gender must go beyond biological binaries.
Funders must enforce locally led accountability: women-led collectives should co-create metrics, define success, and own processes—not just be grantees. Beyond research money (e.g., climate-health), there must be sustainable financing for grassroots leadership, especially in fragile, marginalized communities.
My humble conclusion is that COP 30 has moments of promise—but so far, it risks repeating the old theater of climate diplomacy. The Global South speaks. The North listens. But unless the money is structural, inclusive, and feminist-led, women on the frontlines may remain voiceless in decisions about their own futures.
