Why Gender-Responsive Agricultural Adaptation Is Underfunded

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The paper argues that despite the adoption of gender strategies, climate adaptation funding remains underfunded due to an institutional culture that undervalues gender equality and prioritizes technical approaches over social constructs. It highlights a gap between policy rhetoric and actual budget allocations, noting that gender integration is often siloed or treated as a separate responsibility for advisors. The authors recommend cultivating high-level champions, adopting the Minimum Standards for Gender Mainstreaming, and aligning budgets directly with gender equality commitments to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of adaptation investments.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Climate funding explicitly devoted to gender responsiveness is relatively small and likely overestimated due to inconsistent accounting and transparency. For the 2019–20 period, the Climate Policy Initiative estimated that only 11 percent (US$5 billion of $46 billion) was gender-tagged. Similarly, OECD estimates from 2018–19 indicate that while over half of adaptation programming integrated gender equality objectives, only 2.4 percent had gender equality as a principal objective.
  • The primary obstacle to gender-responsive adaptation is an overarching institutional culture at funding and implementing organizations that undervalues gender equality. This culture leads to gender issues being siloed or viewed as an imposition on technical work, with an overemphasis on women as victims rather than addressing the structural causes of inequality.
  • There is a significant operational gap between the gender policies claimed by institutions and their actual budget allocations and oversight. Many organizations fail to use gender analyses effectively or comply with the Minimum Standards for Gender Mainstreaming, which can result in adaptation initiatives that harm women or worsen gender disparities.

Cite the original document

APA
World Resources Institute (n.d.). Why Gender-Responsive Agricultural Adaptation Is Underfunded. https://www.wri.org/research/why-gender-responsive-agricultural-adaptation-underfunded
Chicago
World Resources Institute. Why Gender-Responsive Agricultural Adaptation Is Underfunded. n.d. https://www.wri.org/research/why-gender-responsive-agricultural-adaptation-underfunded.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=World Resources Institute |title=Why Gender-Responsive Agricultural Adaptation Is Underfunded |url=https://www.wri.org/research/why-gender-responsive-agricultural-adaptation-underfunded |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{worldresourcesinstitutendwhy, author = {{World Resources Institute}}, title = {{Why Gender-Responsive Agricultural Adaptation Is Underfunded}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, url = {https://www.wri.org/research/why-gender-responsive-agricultural-adaptation-underfunded}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated