A landscape analysis reveals significant gaps in educational programming that addresses both gender equality and climate justice, despite growing global advocacy for such intersectional approaches

This study aims to establish a baseline understanding of how international development and education organizations are responding to the intersecting challenges of gender inequality and climate change. The authors conducted two complementary analyses: first, a landscape analysis of actors working in gender, education, leadership, and climate change; and second, an analysis of publicly available curricular materials addressing climate justice and gender equality.

The research reveals that climate change poses a particular threat to girls' education in low- and middle-income countries, where gender roles often constrain opportunities and increase vulnerability to climate impacts. For instance, during weather-related crises, girls are more likely than boys to have their schooling interrupted due to their role in environment-dependent household chores. The Malala Fund (2021) estimates that climate change will prevent at least 12.5 million girls from completing their education by 2025.

The authors' analysis of implementing actors identified three main programmatic entry points: 

1. Women and girls in climate crisis
2. Female leadership in climate action 
3. Girls' education and climate change 

However, they found only one initiative that fully integrated all four domains of interest (gender, education, leadership, and climate change) in a transformative way. Most organizations focus on individual capacity building rather than systemic change, with many emphasizing technical skills development for green jobs rather than broader transformative skills for social change.

The curricular analysis revealed limited publicly available materials that address both climate justice and gender equality. Climate justice materials tend to emphasize cognitive learning approaches and focus on understanding global sociopolitical contexts, while gender transformative materials employ more diverse pedagogical approaches and emphasize socioemotional learning and behavioral change. The authors note that while both types of materials aim to promote social change and activism, they rarely integrate gender and climate justice perspectives together.

The research identifies several significant gaps in current programming:

1. First, there is a notable lack of attention to leadership development in initiatives addressing gender and climate change
2. Second, most green skills programs focus narrowly on technical skills rather than broader transformative capabilities. 
3. Third, programming tends to focus more heavily on adult women than adolescent girls. Finally, while many organizations target individual capacity building, few address systemic change directly.

The authors conclude that educational programming has not yet caught up with global advocacy efforts to address climate change through an intersectional feminist lens. They suggest several opportunities for improvement, including bridging existing programs focused on female leadership with girls' education initiatives, developing more integrated curricula that address both gender and climate justice, and expanding beyond technical skills to include transformative capabilities.

The study provides valuable baseline data for monitoring future developments in transformative education for gender and climate justice. It also offers a taxonomy of programming approaches that can guide organizations toward more intersectional and transformative educational initiatives. The authors emphasize that such programming is crucial for addressing both gender inequality and climate change in ways that benefit both people and the planet.

This research contributes to understanding how environmental education needs to evolve to address intersecting challenges of gender equality and climate justice, particularly in Global South contexts. It demonstrates the importance of moving beyond technical solutions to engage with historical inequities, local knowledge systems, and alternative visions of development.