![]() |
| Marginalised groups' vulnerability to climate change impacts |
At the margins of decision-making: women, IPs, and fisherfolk
Gendered vulnerability—and missing seats
IPCC AR6 and UN bodies underscore what practitioners observe daily: climate risks are differentiated by gender, wealth, location, and identity, and adaptation is more effective when governance is inclusive (IPCC AR6 WGII SPM; UNFCCC policy briefs). Yet, women remain underrepresented in environmental decision-making, from local councils to national planning (UN Women/UN factsheets). It is crucial to differentiate the types of representation women hold within these bodies. Whether women hold decision-making roles, advisory positions, or quota seats significantly affects their influence. Acknowledging and expanding their roles from token participation to effective involvement can substantially improve inclusivity and efficacy in environmental governance.
In the Philippines, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (RA 10121) established councils from national to barangay levels and created formal roles for CSOs (Nam, 2012); the national plan also allocates funds at the LGU level (LDRRMF). But practice still lags—participation varies, and women’s influence is often limited to token seats unless backed by rules, disclosure, and grievance routes (RA 10121 primer; UNDRR country status report).
India’s long-running reservation for women in panchayats demonstrates the impact of design: randomized quotas for female heads alter local investment patterns and public goods delivery (Chattopadhyay & Duflo, 2004), a finding later reinforced in broader reviews and policy debates.
Indigenous Peoples and FPIC
For Indigenous territories, the default must be consent—not just consultation. The Philippines has a firm legal foundation in the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA, RA 8371). The NCIP Revised FPIC Guidelines (2012) require Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for projects that affect ancestral domains, with a defined process that includes community assemblies and decision-making according to customary law (RA 8371; NCIP AO 3/2012; GIZ/Oxfam FPIC primers).
To illustrate the cost of flawed FPIC, consider a recent infrastructure project in the Cordillera region where a hydroelectric dam was constructed without genuine consent from the local Indigenous communities. Despite attending formal consultations, community members were not fully informed of the project's impact on their lands and livelihoods. As a result, many families faced relocation without adequate compensation, losing both ancestral lands and traditional ways of life. This example underscores the crucial importance of each FPIC step in safeguarding community rights and fostering trust.
Internationally, IFC Performance Standard 7 also requires FPIC in specified circumstances (e.g., relocation, significant impacts on critical cultural heritage), making consent a condition for finance in many private projects (World Bank).
Reality check: FPIC is sometimes performed (papers signed, photos taken) without time, translation, or alternatives. “Prior” and “informed” collapse when notices are rushed, or technical impacts (e.g., saline intrusion, erosion, fisheries) are not explained in local terms. Genuine FPIC requires time, resources, and the option to say no—and it must publish minutes, attendance, independent facilitation, and grievance options (NCIP AO 3/2012; UN-REDD case writing) (chr-observatories.uwazi.io).
Fisherfolk: high exposure, low voice
Across Southeast Asia, women are central to small-scale fisheries (processing, trading), yet governance often renders their work and risks invisible (FAO evidence). It is estimated that women account for over 50% of the labor force in fisheries value chains, encompassing roles from processing to marketing, and that they significantly contribute to household incomes. However, where mangroves are cleared or ports expanded without user input, fisher livelihoods, mainly sustained by women, absorb the shock first (FAO small-scale fisheries reports; regional profiles).
FPIC done right vs. performative consultations
Done right
- Prior means calendars align with community seasons; it is time to consult with elders, women, youth, and fishers.
- Informed means bilingual, plain-language materials; 3-D maps, model cross-sections, and side-by-side designs showing with or without-project impacts.
- Consent means consensus or decision rules consistent with custom, documented and verifiable; participation logs published (names as appropriate) and minutes posted.
- Independence means facilitators and translators are not on the proponent’s payroll.
- Grievance means a reachable mechanism and no retaliation for dissent.
These elements align with NCIP AO 3/2012 and IFC PS7 expectations (WIPO).
Performative FPIC
Compressed timelines: a single meeting, one microphone.
Gatekeeper selection: invitations filtered through local bosses; women, migrants, and fishworkers absent.
Document dump: technical PDFs without translation or visuals.
Pre-baked “agreements”: sign now; benefits later.
No paper trail: attendance and minutes withheld.
GIZ/Oxfam reviews in the Philippines document both strong and weak practices, reinforcing that process design is the difference between rights realized and box-ticking.

Comments
Post a Comment