Climate change disproportionately detriments women. Yesterday was Gender Day at COP19, and the serious impacts on gender rights was the topic of many events, including a panel talk of prominent female leaders such Christiana Figueres and our very own Helen Clark. Focusing on gender issues in the climate talks can for some appear arbitrary and perhaps even distracting from the four key areas this year of finance, adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage. But if the priority is to properly put in place a framework from which Lima can further progress to ensure a global agreement in Paris, we must consider women. This means looking at gender representation both inside and outside of the conference walls. Only 34% of country delegates are women. This disparity was included into the text through the ‘Doha Miracle’ at COP last year, where specific clauses were added in relation to CDM and Article 6 (human rights and education) to ensure transparency and accountability for gender equality. Yet, I cannot help but feel that very little action to be more inclusive has been achieved so far. You can walk past entire delegations and sit-in at meeting and find them entirely male-dominated.

I am proud to come from a country that has been heralded as a front runner for women’s rights, giving them the right to vote before anyone else in the world, and having maintained high levels of job access and equal pay. Our very own ambassador of climate change is a woman who, despite having differing views on the actions needed to be taken by New Zealand, is someone I still greatly admire. I just wish the same level of advocacy and innovation that our country has been renowned for would be reflected during these climate talks. We have always spoken out for what is right when it comes to race, gender and being nuclear-free. Now it is time for us to say that economics and politics should not dominate climate change. Our climate does not give one iota about who voted ‘yes’or ‘no’ on the ADP, or who is being bullheaded and walking out of meetings. We must continuously stress the importance of considering the quality of life for billions of people around the world.

This weekend at a development and climate change event, I heard an interesting analogy that I think resonates well with New Zealand’s need to assess the human costs that will continue to increase if we do not play a positive role at COP19. The speaker recounted a conversation he had had with some colleagues about the abolition of slavery. He spoke in astonishment of how one of his peers had announced that the slave owners should have been recompensed for their loss of profits by the slaves for no longer having them as free labour.

Such a statement seems beyond reason, but we can see the very same sort of rhetoric being used within the negotiations here in Warsaw. Everyone, especially New Zealand, continues to remain fixated by the financial concerns. Our country has stated that we will not accept Brazil’s proposal for historical responsibility, and we refuse to consider compensation for loss and damage. I understand the reasons for not wanting to contribute to these funds, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what natural disasters are caused by climate change, and we are a relatively small economy. We also think that we do enough already for our neighbours in the Pacific through the Fast Start Finance program. It is with little doubt that New Zealand has contributed significantly to the infrastructure of these island nations, but most of these funds were already being contributed as part of a development strategy, and very little has actually been looked into as far as adaptation. John Key also had the cheek to attend the Pacific Island Forum in Marshall Islands and call for countries to set ambitious emissions reductions targets, all the while continuing to iterate that New Zealand’s 5% reductions by 2020 was sufficient. We are doing nothing to reduce climate change proactively, 5% will be achieved anyway through the increase of efficient technologies. His demands of the Pacific Islands, waving money in their faces and then sending his delegation to COP19 to have similar funding snatched away is unacceptable. The stakes are already high for developing nations, particularly those in the Pacific, whose coasts continue to be eroded, drinking water is hard to find, and extreme storms plague their wet season.

If we are to ensure the safety of those in these countries, we need to consider properly the costs and effects of climate change for these regions. The Green Climate Fund is empty, but needs to have $100 billion by 2020. Many have said that this is not enough for the future destruction from climate change, calling instead for trillions. We must also look into the non-monetary issues that are morally bankrupt. Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) has become a prominent symbol of COP19, and the repercussions of such a serious weather event illustrate not only the economic, but also the social costs of climate change. Nearly 4000 people were killed and another 1200 remain missing. Most of those lost were women, many of whom had remained in their fragile homes during the storm, either uninformed of evacuation plans or caring for family members who could not be mobilised. The chaos following the disaster has broken down the rule of law and devastated important facilities for women, where there are reports of increased incidences of rape and maternal mortality. The negative impacts of climate change on women, however, are not just spurred from such single cataclysmic events. Women are increasingly becoming the primary producers of the world’s food, and the uncertainty of seasons, such as drought followed by heavy rainfall, has the potential to devastate their entire livelihoods. Emissions trading schemes and programs REDD+ have been heavily scrutinised for their lack of ethics, denying the rights of not only for indigenous people, but also women, who are often left out of the consultation process within their communities. These schemes are not for the common good, and they will not protect those most vulnerable.

The balance between development and conservation has always had a central place during the negotiations, but it seems like the scales are off. We cannot simply throw money at developing nations in order to see mitigative and adaptive measures put in place; the finance needs to be integrated to include both social and environmental effects, and accepted, of course, by all parties. A massive walk-out from Annex II countries and LDC’s during the Loss and Damage consultation early this morning is a miserable indication that a much needed agreement will not be made. We continue to enchain our future generations to a world where an unpredictable and dangerous environment will be the norm and where future girls and women will have their freedoms and rights withheld. It is them who will unfairly pay for our lack of action.

By Meghan Stuthridge.