Wins and Losses for Women at the 29th UN Climate Conference

BAZU, AZERBAIJAN — Gender as a climate issue has historically been pushed to the margins of United Nations negotiations. Though the UN frequently acknowledges its importance, it rarely sets tangible commitments to gender equity. For example, the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement made only brief, vague references to the role of women without establishing binding measures to promote gender equity in climate action. The Enhanced Lima Work Program, which was specifically on Gender, introduced in 2014, only relied on voluntary actions from nations and failed to integrate gender into finance and implementation strategies. Though this gender-sidelining habit was challenged at COP29, the 29th annual UN Climate Change Conference, it was not overturned.

Held in Baku, Azerbaijan, and concluded last week, COP29 brought together nearly 200 nations to discuss global strategies for addressing the climate crisis. The event saw some progress in nations’ establishment of gender-related frameworks, though not without significant resistance and omissions, leaving glaring obstacles for real gender equity. Women’s representation saw an uptick, and nations adopted a new gender work program, but the lack of enforceable measures and financial commitments leaves an uphill battle for gender-responsive climate action.

Perhaps the most celebrated victory of COP29 was countries adopting a new ten-year Gender Work Program to replace the now-expired Enhanced Lima Work Program on Gender. The program aims to ensure climate policies actively reduce gender inequality while promoting women’s participation in decision-making. The Program is equally ambitious as it is ambiguous in its vision to shift climate action towards a more gender-equitable landscape.

The program draws on the principle of intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how various social identities—like gender, race, and class—intersect to create unique systems of disadvantage or privilege. In the context of climate change, this means recognizing how women, particularly in low-income and rural communities, are disproportionately vulnerable due to their roles in managing food, water, and energy resources.

Bangladesh, for instance, faces severe climate risks, including rising sea levels and intensified cyclones. Women in coastal areas, often responsible for securing water and maintaining crops, are among the most brutal hit. During an especially severe tropical storm in 1991, for example, 90 percent of the 140,000 people who died in the country were women. They face greater barriers to recovery than men, like limited access to financial aid and cultural restrictions that hinder their mobility.

The vulnerabilities of women to climate disasters extend beyond economic and logistical challenges. Climate change has exacerbated gender-based violence (GBV) in affected communities. A 2020 report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that incidents of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking spike in the aftermath of disasters, with women and girls often being targeted during periods of instability. 

The success of the newly ratified Gender Work Programme hinges on its enforcement mechanisms, which remain largely undefined. While the framework commits nations to integrating gender considerations into their policies, it lacks specific guidelines for accountability. As it stands, countries are not required to report their progress on gender equity, nor are there penalties in place for failing to meet commitments. Without these mechanisms, the program risks becoming another symbolic gesture rather than a transformative tool.

Opposition from powerful nations.

The geopolitics of gender became evident in the resistance from a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and the Vatican, which opposed several gender-related measures at the conference. Saudi Arabia, in particular, rejected calls to link climate projects to broader human rights commitments, arguing that these issues fell outside the scope of climate policy. It also pushed back against language that recognized intersectionality, fearing nations could use the term to justify interventions in its domestic affairs. Just before COP was due to conclude, Saudi Arabia was accused of secretly editing official negotiating texts to remove wording that encouraged parties to consider just transition pathways (fair and inclusive frameworks) aligned with the Paris Agreement. 

The opposition from these nations is not surprising, given their records on women’s rights. In Saudi Arabia, though the government instituted reforms such as allowing women to drive and travel independently, it also just recently enacted one of the most archaic laws of modern times. The 2022 Personal Status Law requires women to obtain male guardian approval for marriage or custody, ties a wife’s financial support to her “obedience,” and obliges her to have sexual relations when her husband so wishes.

In that same year, the Iranian government faced international condemnation for its violent crackdown on women-led protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman who died in police custody after being arrested for allegedly violating Iran’s strict hijab laws. Most recently, The Islamic Republic of Iran announced plans to open a clinic to provide “scientific and psychological treatment” for women who defy mandatory hijab laws. 

If anything, these incidents demonstrate how resistance to gender equity at COP29 reflects countries’ broader, systemic issues.

Argentina’s exit could be deadly for its women.

Argentina’s decision to leave COP29 negotiations early in the first week sent shockwaves through the conference. Though the country cited disagreements over the fairness of proposed climate finance mechanisms, arguing that they disproportionately burden developing nations, its president is a notorious climate denier who dissolved Argentina’s entire environment ministry not long before the conference.

While Argentina framed its withdrawal as an economic protest, it has broader implications for gender equity. As in many countries, women in Argentina face heightened vulnerabilities to climate change, particularly in rural areas dependent on agriculture.

At the same time, Argentina’s record on women’s rights is far from exemplary. While the country legalized abortion in 2020, access remains uneven, particularly for low-income and rural women. Gender-based violence is also a critical issue, with 322 femicides recorded in 2023 alone. 

By abandoning the negotiations, Argentina forfeited an opportunity to advocate for gender-responsive climate finance, which could have benefited its most vulnerable populations.

Canyons between women, finance and representation.

This year’s COP, often referred to as the “Finance COP,” centered on setting the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)—an agreement for wealthy nations to provide financial support to poorer, developing countries to help them transition to green economies and adapt to the worsening impacts of climate change. While the official text acknowledged the urgent need for at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2030 to meet these goals, wealthy nations proposed a far more modest target: $300 billion by 2035—less than a quarter of what is required and arriving a decade too late. Compounding the disappointment, the financial offer remained ambiguous despite calls from policy experts and climate leaders for unconditional grants from high-emitting nations. The lack of clarity allows mechanisms like loans and fossil-fuel-linked carbon credits to count toward the target, potentially undermining the very communities the funding is intended to support.

Under this agreement, gender-specific financial aid and adaptation finance will remain underfunded despite women often being the backbone of communities on the frontlines of climate change. When floods destroy farmland or droughts empty wells, it is women who bear the brunt of these crises. Yet COP29 offered no assurances that funding would prioritize their needs.

The Loss and Damage Fund, another headline purported achievement of COP29, similarly lacked gender-responsive measures. Loss and damage refer to the unavoidable impacts of climate change that exceed the limits of adaptation, such as destruction caused by extreme weather events or slow-onset crises like sea-level rise, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. The fund risks perpetuating existing inequalities without mechanisms to channel support to women and marginalized groups.

Including women in the COP29 organizing committee was another step forward, albeit reactive. Following sharp criticism from civil society organizations and gender advocacy groups, the Azerbaijani presidency expanded its leadership to include women. These new voices were instrumental in highlighting the disproportionate exclusion of women from climate finance and calling for gender-responsive adaptation strategies.

What now?

The outcomes of COP29 demonstrate the canyon between symbolic victories and substantive progress that is so common in the UN process. The adoption of a gender work program and the inclusion of women in leadership roles mark undeniable steps forward, but these gains are threatened by systemic resistance and financial shortfalls. 

Where the gender agenda still fails is in the lack of accountability mechanisms and targeted financial support for women-led initiatives, as well as terse political opposition to and influence on gender equity.

Gender-specific language in these agreements is not just about fairness or representation; it’s about survival. The climate crisis doesn’t discriminate, but the systems addressing it often do. Bridging that gap will be an accurate measure of success in the years to come.