Over the past decade, the integration of gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) considerations into the requirements of major climate adaptation funds has matured. Previously, funders mandated only GEDSI-sensitive design approaches — which merely collects disaggregated data, identifies gender differences and measures participation instead of responding to the needs of marginalised groups, such as women, persons with disabilities, youth and minority ethnicities. By comparison, GEDSI-responsive approaches respond to gender differences, shape project design based on findings and measure whether participation translates into equitable benefits. As a result, projects are better positioned to achieve lasting improvements for vulnerable groups, rather than demonstrating secondary social benefits as a tick-box measure for reporting alignment with social progress objectives. 

However, this progress has not occurred consistently across the climate finance landscape. Some funders — such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) — maintain a comprehensive Gender Assessment and Action Plan (GAAP) used to assess every bankable project, others continue to treat GEDSI as a secondary consideration. Where the level of GEDSI integration detail is left to the discretion of project developers, practical limitations on funding and data access frequently preclude GEDSI-responsive design. To enable the harmonisation of GEDSI requirements to a consistent, high standard, we recommend that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its role as a coordinating body, facilitates the development of universally applicable guidance material for use across the most prominent vertical funds. Harmonisation of this kind would also simplify development of projects drawing on multiple funding streams at once, with a single, consistent standard applied across adaptation, mitigation and loss-and-damage components.

Any harmonised GEDSI guidance introduced should also realistically support the level of detail achievable within typical project funding and time constraints. Genuine intersectionality — accounting fully for how gender interacts with disability, Indigenous identity, age and marital status — is rarely achievable in full, since funding and logistical limitations will nearly always preclude consultations with all vulnerable groups and unique combinations of stakeholder types. Upfront research should instead explicitly designate a subset of priority vulnerable groups and combinations whose perspectives are most relevant to specific climate change impacts and the delivery of project activities in their specific context. This will enable informed design of consultations and project activities from the outset. 

Although less comprehensive GEDSI requirements decrease the potential for equitable social benefits, they may be seen as desirable by some funders as they also lower barriers to accessing climate finance, particularly for countries with an insufficiently developed enabling environment. In many contexts, the government institutions responsible for supporting climate finance projects are not yet adequately capacitated to conduct rigorous, community-level GEDSI analysis. Moreover, readiness support is typically directed toward national and sub-national governments, ministries and sectoral leads rather than their community-level counterparts. Climate adaptation readiness funding specifically dedicated to building GEDSI capacity, rather than treating it as incidental to broader institutional readiness support, will be a prerequisite to the harmonisation of GEDSI requirements to higher standards.

C4 was afforded the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive GEDSI assessment during the project Climate-resilient Landscapes for Sustainable Livelihoods in northern Ghana. This project included a dedicated gender and safeguards mission, whereas most projects integrate GEDSI and safeguards considerations into existing consultations. These community-specific consultations were sufficiently detailed to provide a defensible rationale for GEDSI-responsive interventions. Several of these interventions aimed to move beyond responsiveness towards transformative change and would likely not have secured GCF approval without this depth of supporting evidence. We recommend that funders mandate this standard of GEDSI assessment, ring-fencing dedicated funding for bespoke stakeholder engagement methodology design and extensive upfront consultations. The GAAP and stakeholder engagement methodology delivered during the Ghana project were of the highest standard, enabling the project accredited entity (the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP) to use these as reference standards when evaluating other proposals.

The structural gaps in GEDSI implementation described previously are compounded by ongoing challenges in funding availability within the climate change adaptation sector. As climate finance allocations are subjected to greater scrutiny and, in some cases, overall funding is reduced, secondary priorities such as GEDSI risk being deprioritised. However, a more encouraging counter-trend may offset this. Increasing focus on differentiated impacts of climate change in adjacent sectors, particularly health and education, could sustain momentum for GEDSI-responsive development. 

As the climate change adaptation sector continues to mature, GEDSI-responsive design must be mainstreamed into methodologies to supplement existing GEDSI-disaggregated monitoring and evaluation. Achieving this requires harmonised funder guidance, dedicated GEDSI allocations within readiness funding, and the integration of realistic yet ambitious scope for intersectional analysis of priority stakeholder groups into funder requirements and templates. C4 EcoSolutions applies this standard when designing and implementing adaptation and mitigation projects and recommends its adoption as international best practice across the sector.