The notion that women are inherently nurturing and environmentally conscious perpetuates gendered roles of domesticity, reducing women’s economic agency. A 2021 research paper, ‘Gender Equality in Climate Policy and Practice Hindered by Assumptions’, shows no empirical basis for these claims, as they originated in the ecofeminist movements of the 1970s. However, these assumptions have influenced climate policy, often reinforcing gender norms rather than addressing structural inequalities.

For example, a 2011 climate adaptation policy in Nicaragua provided wood-saving stoves to women, under the assumption that they were the primary users of household energy. However, studies, such as ‘Climate Change, “Technology” and Gender: “Adapting Women” to Climate Change with Cooking Stoves and Water Reservoirs’ (2016) by Noémi Gonda, show that men were primarily responsible for gathering firewood, highlighting how gendered policy framings often rely on stereotypical roles rather than empirical realities. This perpetuates what scholars have termed the ‘girl effect’, a concept first popularized by the Nike Foundation in 2008, which promoted investment in adolescent girls as a high-yield development strategy. While the narrative has gained traction in global development discourse, critics such as Ginger Ging-Dwan Boyd in various writing such as, ‘The Girl Effect: A Neoliberal Instrumentalization of Gender Equality’ (2016); Naila Kabeer in ‘Women’s Empowerment and Economic Development: A Feminist Critique of Storytelling Practices in “Randomista” Economics’ (2020); and Jessica Horn in ‘Thoughts on Radical Care in African Feminist Praxis’ (2020), argue that it instrumentalizes girls as agents of poverty reduction, while overlooking the structural barriers they face. In doing so, the girl effect reinforces caregiving expectations by framing girls as naturally responsible for the well-being of households and communities, thereby entrenching domestic responsibilities.

Similarly, many climate adaptation policies assume a homogenous ‘women’s experience’, failing to account for intersecting factors like class, ethnicity and marital status. In Mali, for instance, a policy aimed at women farmers unintentionally exacerbated gender inequities by largely benefiting the men, who owned the larger parcels of land and farm animals and also conducted the major trade negotiations and decision-making parts of the business. Due to persistent socio-cultural barriers and implementation challenges, the policy demonstrated how framing women as universally vulnerable, especially in terms of access and other socio-economic factors, can create unintended disparities. A 2021 paper, ‘Exploratory Analysis of Women’s Right of Access: A Land Case of Mali’ by Richard Traore, makes a similar case.

The Nicaraguan case also reveals another common flaw in climate adaptation policies: the prioritization of married women over single women. Climate initiatives often assume household structures that privilege nuclear family dynamics, sidelining women who do not conform to these models. This oversight highlights a broader issue within gender mainstreaming efforts—namely, a focus on numerical representation without addressing socio-cultural norms. Many initiatives count the number of women involved without interrogating whether their participation leads to meaningful shifts in power dynamics. Studies such as ‘Women’s Participation in REDD+ National Decision-Making in Vietnam’ (2016) by Pham et al. and a 2018 report by Social Action on Nigeria’s Cross River State suggest that women’s participation in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programmes often meets equality targets but fails to enhance women’s agency due to unaddressed cultural barriers. This is evident in Vietnam where, despite significant female attendance in REDD+ meetings, women rarely hold leadership positions or influence decision-making. Recruitment protocols favour men, while patriarchal norms within the forestry sector perpetuate male dominance in resource management.

In Ghana, socio-cultural perceptions of gendered labour further constrain women’s access to and control over forest resources. Research, such as ‘Mainstreaming Gender Considerations into REDD+ Processes in Ghana’ (2011), highlights that women are often excluded from decision-making in forestry due to beliefs that they lack the necessary knowledge and physical strength for sustainable resource management. However, these exclusions do not merely stem from social perception but are reinforced by land tenure systems that privilege male inheritance and ownership. As a result, even when climate programmes seek to integrate women, they do so within existing gender hierarchies rather than challenging them. The impact of these cultural norms is further compounded by land tenure systems that limit women’s ability to claim forest resources. In many Ghanaian communities, land inheritance follows patrilineal structures, meaning that even when women engage in forest conservation or agroforestry, they often do so on land owned by male relatives.

This affects their ability to benefit from climate adaptation incentives, as resource ownership remains a prerequisite for participation in many REDD+ initiatives. Thus, the persistence of gendered cultural roles not only restricts women’s direct involvement but also influences how climate adaptation programmes define legitimate forms of knowledge and expertise. Without directly challenging these underlying power structures, REDD+ policies risk reinforcing rather than alleviating gender disparities. Similarly, in Namibia, despite increases in female participation in climate initiatives, decision-making remains male-dominated due to entrenched gender roles. Some climate adaptation programmes encourage women’s involvement in environmental conservation yet reinforce domestic labour expectations by framing women’s role as caretakers of natural resources rather than active agents in climate governance. This aligns with broader patterns in climate policy, where gender mainstreaming efforts prioritize representation without addressing structural inequalities.

These examples illustrate that achieving numerical gender parity does not translate to substantive empowerment when socio-cultural barriers remain unchallenged. Instead, they highlight how adaptation policies must go beyond participation metrics and confront the structural forces that limit women’s autonomy. Without addressing these deeper issues, climate interventions risk exacerbating existing gender disparities by reinforcing traditional roles rather than dismantling them.