COP30, GENDER ACTION PLAN: THE TEXT IS READY, BUT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT YET
- The new Gender Action Plan 2026-2034 is ready, but the agreement is stalled over language and definitions requested by more conservative countries.
- Issues remain unresolved regarding rights, protection of activists and funding: the text now passes to ministers.
During the first week of COP30, work on the new Gender Action Plan was intense. Although COP29 negotiations on the issue ended on a somewhat bitter note due to disputes over language, the commitment to renew this important process for another ten years remained firm.
In Belém, the delegations worked quickly: the facilitators, who had been active since June, urged the Parties to reach agreement on the negotiating text within the first week, taking into account the considerable work already done. As we had announced, the text for adoption is ready, as is the new Gender Action Plan attached. The text provides for the adoption of the new GAP 2026-2034 and the review of its implementation, together with the Lima Work Programme on Gender, by 2029. This is accompanied by the actual GAP, a tabular text of more than 25 pages that sets out the objectives, activities and expected results for each of the five priorities of the GAP. What is missing is the final agreement and, above all, the consensus: once again, the more conservative countries have been inflexible on the terms to be included in the text. In particular, during the sessions, Russia repeatedly opposed the use of terms on which, in its view, there is no shared consensus among the Parties – including “women’s sexual and reproductive health rights” and “people of diverse gender identities” (meaning the LGBTIQ+ community) and the term “gender transformative”. The Russian delegation also requested that the term “gender-responsive” be replaced with “gender perspective” in relation to, for example, financial implementation and capacity building measures.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Argentina and Paraguay raised the stakes further. Argentina highlighted the absence of the footnote that had been inserted in Bonn to refer to the Rome Statute, and emphasised a binary view of gender (man/woman), which was also shared by Paraguay. Iran and the Holy See proposed their own explanatory note with binary interpretations of gender. Paraguay even cited the Spanish dictionary definition of the term “gender”, which, however, recognises its nature as a social construct, thus partially contradicting its own position. Iran asked to replace “equality” with “balanced”.
Faced with this, the European Union – together with ILAC (Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean), Norway, the United Kingdom, Canada, AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and EIG (Environmental Integrity Group) – sent a clear message: these footnotes are a red line. The text must be able to accommodate different cultural perspectives, but without including them all as official interpretations, preferring technical terms that are broad enough to encompass them. “If we were to accept all interpretations of gender, we would have as many footnotes as there are countries party to the Paris Agreement,” the EU commented ironically.
It is worth emphasising that technical terms that embrace social complexity and social justice theories do not detract from more conservative countries: on the contrary, binary terms limit rights, reduce the options at stake and favour a single interpretation at the expense of the richness of diversity.
On emerging issues, Russia, supported by Saudi Arabia and Paraguay, refused to include the protection of environmentalist women and human rights defenders or women victims of gender-based violence. This position goes against reality: the United Nations has already recognised that these women, especially indigenous women on the front lines against powerful corporations and governments, are under attack. Climate change also exacerbates gender-based violence.
Mexico, Chile and Panama have reiterated that they will not accept a text that ignores these priorities, and in particular the needs of environmentalist women and human rights activists.
There were then discussions regarding so-called nature-based solutions, which must receive technical and financial support for the implementation of gender considerations, with the G77 group proposing, supported by many other Parties, to replace that wording with “ecosystem-based approach”. The proposal may not be negative, and certainly reveals a holistic and ecological view of the problem of climate change. Other Parties requested the removal of references to the IPCC and the Rio Convention, but their proposals were promptly rejected and do not seem to have taken root, given that the references are still present in the text and have not even been placed in brackets (which would indicate a pending issue requiring further discussion). On the issue of financing, the Parties did not adopt particularly binding language, and in this context Australia requested the removal of the words “public finance” from the text, with opposition from the LDC (Least Developed Countries).
On behalf of civil society, YOUNGO and the Women and Gender Constituency reminded the Parties that the negotiating text is not an academic exercise, but has a real impact on the lives of millions of women and girls in their diversity. They called for these priorities to be placed at the centre of the negotiations, rather than mere government preferences – a commendable appeal.
The text is therefore ready, albeit still full of brackets, and ready to be passed on to the Presidency after being reviewed by ministers, who are called upon to resolve the most sensitive issues in the second week of COP30. The Women and Gender Constituency has already taken action with the Swedish and Chilean delegations to push for a text that is more consistent with technical language and the interests of human diversity. Now we just have to see if this lobbying effort will bear fruit.
Article by Erika Moranduzzo, Coordinator of the Climate and Human Rights Section of Italian Climate Network.
Cover image: photo by UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth