Gender, equity and climate policy

Episode 02: Gender, Equity and Climate Policy
By Charmaine Caparas, Ha Nguyen, and Teddy Baguilat

Charmaine Caparas (00:06 – 00:20):
Welcome to SEI Asia’s podcast on environment and policy in Asia. In this podcast series, we invite experts to discuss the many critical and complex environmental challenges in Asia and how to find solutions through policy and partnerships.

Charmaine (00:25 – 00:49):
Hello everyone! I’m Charmaine from the Stockholm Environment Institute. In today’s podcast, we are going to talk about gender equality through a lens of intersectionality. Our two guests for today will look at how the Asian region can re-examine environmental policy mechanisms that can hinder and trigger outcomes.

Charmaine (00:50 – 01:12):
I am joined by Ms. Ha Nguyen, who is a Research Fellow with the Gender, Environment and Development research cluster at the SEI Asia Centre. She has 15 years of experience in program design and management with a focus on gender and women’s empowerment. Welcome, Ha, to the podcast!

Ha Nguyen (01:13 – 01:15):
Thank you, Charmaine. It’s my pleasure to be here.

Charmaine (01:16 – 02:05):
We’re also joined today by Mr. Teddy Baguilat, who was the former Congressman for the Lone district of Ifugao from 2010 to 2019. He has also served as Ifugao Governor and Kiangan Mayor and Councilor since the late 1990s. He has championed the cause of his native Ifugao tribe and all indigenous peoples (IP) as a lawmaker by proposing laws that protect indigenous peoples and community-conserved territories and areas (ICCAs). Teddy is an ally of the LGBTQIA community as a staunch advocate of the Anti-Discrimination Bill and SOGIE, and a mother’s voice as the only male champion of the expanded maternity act in Congress. Welcome, Teddy, to our podcast!

Teddy Baguilat (02:06 – 02:09):
Hi Charmaine. Hi Ha. Thanks for having me.

Charmaine (02:10 – 02:23):
I would like to ask Ha, before we dig deeper into our discussion, it would be great to clarify some terms. What does it mean when we say we should use an intersectional lens on gender equality?

Ha (02:24 – 04:19):
When we talk about gender equality, people tend to relate to the binary of women and men, and the idea that women are treated unequally to men. In reality, not all women are the same, neither are men. Within the country, a woman with a well-paid job in the city is regarded differently from a woman who has spent her entire life working on the farm. Within the same community, a woman with high education tends to get more respect or higher social status compared to those with no or low education. So, using an intersectionality lens means we should not focus solely on the binary between women and men; we have to look into other social identities such as race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and so on. In our research on green jobs, the use of intersectionality enables us to question who benefits or is exploited from employment created by the transition to a bioeconomy or circular economy. In another research on how the Sendai Framework promotes gender equality and social inclusion, the intersectionality lens allows us to find out that people with disabilities are left behind in disaster risk reduction efforts at the country level. Not to mention, different types of disabilities require different risk reduction approaches. So, in a nutshell, the intersectionality lens enables us to gain a more nuanced understanding of who is privileged, who is disadvantaged, or marginalized.

Charmaine (04:20 – 04:30):
So Teddy, as someone who has a lot of experience as a lawmaker, what do you think about intersectionality in relation to environmental policies?

Teddy (04:31 – 05:53):
When there are marginalized sectors, even among the marginalized, there are also subgroups that are even more marginalized. This could be indigenous peoples, rural women, children, of course. Take the case of the reproductive health law, which we passed in the Philippines. It’s really a rights law that addresses the needs of families, particularly women, in being able to decide for themselves and decide for their bodies. Even among indigenous peoples, they are considered in the Philippines as the most marginalized among marginalized sectors. And while we do have the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, which is something that is revolutionary all over the world, in terms of implementation, enforcement, and general perceptions of indigenous peoples in the Philippines, there’s still a lot of discrimination and a lot of laws that need to be amended in order to protect their rights. So I do agree, while for me as a legislator, we have been focusing a lot on marginalized sectors—farmers, rural folks, indigenous peoples—but within these sectors, there are also some subsectors that need to be given more attention.

Charmaine (05:54 – 06:06):
I think it’s an excellent way of explaining intersectionality—having subgroups within the group.

Charmaine (06:07 – 07:01):
For instance, I was thinking about one very important program which addresses social justice: agrarian reform, or land reform giving land to the landless. So the law initially only recognized the male spouse as title holder, but not women. So there was a need to amend that law. Therefore, in terms of credit access, there is already that discrimination against women or female agrarian reform beneficiaries, from government or financial institutions. So that’s one prime example that while we are trying to address social justice and help the marginalized, even within that sector, there are subgroups that require attention in legislation and policies.

Ha (07:02 – 07:52):
I would like to react to your example of women’s land rights because I think it’s a really interesting example from the intersectional point of view. Not all women support giving land to women. For example, a mother-in-law who wants to protect family land to secure her future may not want to give land to her daughter-in-law when the couple gets divorced or if her son dies. This is what I found in one of my research projects in Vietnam. By factoring in another identity—in this case, the mother-in-law—we gain a more nuanced understanding of the conflict of interest among women’s groups.

Teddy (07:53 – 09:28):
Yeah, I agree with Ha. Even among indigenous peoples, who are a subset of the most marginalized of the marginalized, many indigenous communities are very patriarchal. While generally they are protective of women and children as per cultural norms, decision-making is often done by elders, who are mostly male. These elders decide on agreements with the government or private sector for development programs in their ancestral domains. So despite the protective norms, political and economic decision-making is male-dominated. But I believe culture evolves. We need to continue empowering women so that cultural norms and governance evolve to include their voices.

Charmaine (09:29 – 09:41):
Given all of these challenges, how can we strengthen alliances to build a gender-just sociopolitical environment?

Ha (09:42 – 11:12):
Policy has to address the problem of inequality and social injustice on the ground. There is overwhelming evidence that policies prioritizing the commercialization of nature have led to environmental changes that expose poor communities to disaster and poverty. To move toward a gender-just political environment, policy and policymakers must take the side of poor and disadvantaged groups. Policymakers should listen to researchers and the community of practice. In my view, policymakers favor statistics and quantified changes—such as increased jobs and income—while paying less attention to qualitative dimensions like decent jobs, fair pay, or environmental health. These aspects reveal inequality and injustice. Scientific and civil society communities are always ready to work with policymakers and provide evidence, but it ultimately depends on political will and commitment to reach out to these communities.

Teddy (11:13 – 13:03):
We have to be more inclusive, whether as policymakers or as civil society organizations. Policymakers rarely listen to the sectors affected by their policies. They must not only consult experts but also include voices from the ground. In my legislative work, many environmental bills were drafted with inputs from civil society networks, academia, and government researchers. But after drafting, it’s crucial to talk to those affected—indigenous peoples, farmers, and local governments. At the same time, civil society should not see lawmakers as enemies. Although relations have been tense in the past, if civil society wants its advocacies turned into law, it must engage with policymakers.

Teddy (13:04 – 14:42):
A good development in Southeast Asia is the advocacy for human rights, including climate action. For example, the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights—of which I was Executive Director and now serve on the board—is a platform for civil society and academia to meet with parliamentarians and promote democratic values. Many parliaments in the region are still dominated by older, elite males. That’s why building strong alliances and being inclusive is crucial, both for politicians engaging with sectors and for advocates engaging with politicians.

Charmaine (14:43 – 15:12):
Okay Teddy, as a follow-up question, how can we be inclusive in practice, especially when there’s often one dominant knowledge or culture that actively excludes women from decision-making? What can indigenous peoples—especially women—do to enhance inclusiveness? You’ve mentioned the male dominance in many conversations.

Teddy (15:13 – 16:29):
We need to capacitate women to be more active in governance processes within their communities. Cultural norms may be patriarchal, but indigenous communities do respect women and children. It’s a matter of helping women understand their rights—whether under the Constitution, national laws, or cultural traditions—and assert those rights in decision-making. There are now empowered women leaders in many indigenous communities around the world. It’s about asserting their voices—not necessarily by challenging cultural norms, but by reinforcing their place in the collective decision-making processes of the tribe.

Ha (16:30 – 17:24):
That’s very true—women’s voices need to be strengthened and women need confidence to assert themselves. But there’s another dimension: the politics of knowledge. Whose knowledge counts? The voices and knowledge of local communities—particularly women—are often undermined. So how can the voices and knowledge of disadvantaged groups like indigenous women be legitimized and recognized as valid? As a policymaker, do you have any advice?

Teddy (17:25 – 19:13):
That’s a difficult question. If you look at most parliaments—national, regional, even village councils—they’re male-dominated and often represent the elite. In the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, political dynasties dominate. It’s rare for such bodies to prioritize voices of women and the marginalized. Often, their policies protect their own interests. That’s why constituents need to be savvy. In representative democracies, we elect people to speak for us—but we need to make sure those we elect actually do represent our issues and values. That has been my experience as a policymaker.

Ha (19:14 – 19:27):
I think that’s the key—and a very practical approach. My question may have been a little dreamy, but your answer is how things work in reality. Thank you.

Teddy (19:28 – 19:57):
That’s the kind of democracy we have now—an elite, representative democracy. I hope that will change. If we’re serious about climate action and progressive laws, we must elect people who represent those causes.

Ha (19:58 – 20:10):
Are we kind of targeting specific social categories when we try to frame environmental policies or even research around intersectionality?

Ha (20:11 – 20:50):
It’s not about choosing which social groups to target. It’s about understanding how people with certain social identities experience unequal treatment, violence, or deprivation of rights in specific contexts. Intersectionality helps us understand which combinations of identities make people especially vulnerable, and that understanding can guide who we focus on—not out of favoritism, but out of necessity.

Teddy (20:51 – 22:29):
That’s something policymakers must consider. Usually, we just think in terms of broad sectors, like “the poor” or “women,” without considering subgroups. But these issues do come up. For example, when we passed the new HIV/AIDS law in the Philippines, there was a push to focus testing on the LGBT community. We opposed that, because it would stigmatize them. Testing should be aggressive but voluntary—and it must not discriminate. We shouldn’t target groups just because we think they’re more vulnerable. Instead, we must protect their rights and avoid reinforcing stigma.

Ha (22:30 – 22:40):
Very good point. That would be an example of using intersectionality in the wrong way.

Charmaine (22:41 – 22:52):
To wrap up our conversation today, how can we change our approach so that we reduce inequalities and achieve transformational change?

Ha (22:53 – 23:40):
I’d echo what Teddy said: inclusion. An inclusive process means recognizing the voices of different groups. As a feminist social scientist, I’d add that we need to maintain a critical, uncompromising perspective on gender and social equality. We must challenge dominant narratives about development and expose how inequality and injustice are produced. Our knowledge can be a catalyst for social change.

Teddy (23:41 – 24:32):
Let’s reach out to politicians and policymakers. I know civil society and researchers often feel allergic to the politics behind policy, but we must accept it. We need to educate policymakers. There’s growing awareness now—especially around climate issues. But after promises are made, will governments fulfill them? That’s where all of us must stay involved and hold them accountable.

Charmaine (24:33 – 25:24):
Well said, Teddy. One final question: as a communicator, I try to get research to reach policymakers like yourself. You mentioned engagement is key. So practically speaking, what’s the best way to reach you and influence your decisions?

Teddy (25:25 – 26:46):
That’s a whole course—Lobbying 101! Policymakers don’t usually read long research papers. You talk to their staff—they break things down. Think of policymakers as voters. In campaign season, I talk to people about the environment, but to connect, I use language they understand. Instead of “climate change,” I talk about floods—something they experience. The same goes for policymakers. You have to translate your advocacy into terms they connect with.

Charmaine (26:47 – 26:56):
Before we end, do you have any final thoughts or messages?

Ha (26:57 – 28:10):
Yes, just one. If we use intersectionality the wrong way—like dividing groups to target them—it can damage solidarity and social support systems. I’ve seen development projects that, while trying to help the poorest, ended up fragmenting communities. Intersectionality should be used to understand different experiences and vulnerabilities, so we can build solidarity and collective action across groups.

Teddy (28:11 – 29:25):
I just want to thank Ha—I learned from her today. It’s important to stay open to new ideas. Even with years of experience in policy, there’s always more to learn. Especially when we’re talking about the planet—it requires collective action from governments and the public. Let’s work together to make sure our messages reach everyone and make real change.

Charmaine (29:26 – 30:18):
Thank you so much Ha and Teddy for sharing your thoughts today. This podcast is meant to encourage discourse and share ideas for how we can act not only sustainably, but also justly and equitably. Thank you to our listeners—please subscribe and share the podcast if you enjoyed it. See you next time!