This brief synthesizes insights from an expert webinar on 5 March 2026 on the Political Economy of Gender and Energy, hosted by the ENERGIA International Network on Gender and Energy, The Policy Practice, and the Thinking and Working Politically Community of Practice. The webinar convened practitioners, researchers, development partners, and policy actors working at the intersection of energy access, gender equality, and political economy analysis. The objective was to foster a candid discussion on how fiscal pressures, geopolitical change, and evolving development agendas are shifting priorities and financing around gender and social inclusion (GESI) in the energy transition. Discussions focused on whether, given these shifts and reduced funding and focus on GESI in development cooperation, GESI will continue to be meaningfully integrated into the energy transition. The discussions were structured around two questions: (1) changes in the priorities of development partners regarding GESI and (2) strategies that practitioners have used to embed GESI within national energy institutions.
Shifting priorities among development partners
The first part of the webinar examined how development partner priorities, funding mechanisms, and geopolitical shifts are shaping gender equality efforts in the energy sector.
The changing political and funding context
Development partners are operating within a rapidly shifting political landscape, influenced by fiscal tightening and competing global crises, rising geopolitical fragmentation, the spread of conservative, anti‑gender and anti-equity narratives, and internal restructuring of development cooperation portfolios.
Speakers noted that GESI continues to appear in development cooperation rhetoric, but the commitments seen in policies not always translate into gender‑responsive energy program designs or funding at a scale that matches the gender gaps identified.
Sensitivity around language related to GESI
Terms such as gender equality, women’s rights and empowerment face resistance in several political contexts. Development actors are responding to this by increasingly reframing their GESI work by relating it to women’s economic participation, job creation, and entrepreneurship. While this reframing can help maintain traction for interventions aimed at reducing GESI gaps, it also risks narrowing GESI work and not addressing structural issues that maintain inequality.
Systemic underfunding of gender and last mile communities
Participants described a widening gap between commitments and financing. For example, electrification receives relatively strong investment while clean cooking and last‑mile access, both of which are critical for women and excluded persons, remain severely underfunded. This then limits the testing of models and scaling up successful approaches. In some cases some governments in the Global South express interest in gender‑responsive programs but can struggle to secure donor support.
Market-based approaches and private sector financing dominate
There is increasing emphasis on market-based approaches, catalytic finance, blended finance, and framing energy as a service rather than a public good or a right. While such market framing and mechanisms have mobilized significant investment, these favor well‑capitalized actors and do not sufficiently reach and benefit women-led energy enterprises, small-scale local energy businesses, and last-mile communities
Integrating Gender in National Energy Institutions
The second part of the webinar focused on national-level political economy, exploring how country experts from Kenya, Nepal and Nigeria, integrated gender equality and social inclusion in national energy institutions. Several practical lessons emerged from country experiences shared by the experts.
Learning and speaking the sector’s language
A key insight for ensuring that GESI considerations are taken seriously in the sector was the importance of translating GESI considerations into technical and economic terms recognized within energy institutions. This can be done, for example, by linking GESI to tariff reform, demand-side management, and operational protocols, or by positioning inclusion as a factor in system reliability, revenue efficiency, and customer engagement. This approach often enables progress in highly technical, male-dominated institutions.
Recognizing and using political and policy windows
Participants emphasized identifying and capitalizing on moments such as new climate commitments, international declarations, sector restructuring, and leadership changes. Such windows create opportunities for embedding GESI within policy, regulation, and institutional practices.
Identifying champions and building coalitions
Identifying internal champions including regulators, engineers, senior decision makers and making them GESI champions can play a decisive role. Effective coalitions often include civil society and women’s networks, private sector actors, international development partners, and research institutions. These alliances help sustain momentum, generate evidence, influence public discourse, and ensure accountability.
Broader inclusion
There is growing momentum to move from GESI-only frameworks toward Gender Equality, Disability & Social Inclusion (GEDSI) approaches. Participants shared some major energy programs that address persons with disabilities and even race. However, currently there are few and in many are in infancy but there is need to scale them.
Key Messages from the Discussion
Several key messages emerged from the webinar discussions:
1. Gender equality and social inclusion in energy are politically contested: While GESI remain a recognized development objective, it is increasingly shaped by broader geopolitical trends, donor priorities, and political narratives that are counter to the concept itself.
2. Energy access itself is transformative for women: While women’s jobs and entrepreneurship in the sector are crucial, it is important to recognize that energy access itself can have transformative impacts on women’s lives when it addresses their needs and reduces time poverty, improves health outcomes, enables their economic participation and supports their care work.
3. Institutional change is essential and practitioners need to continue to advocate for and embed GESI within, national energy policies, institutional mandates, and monitoring and accountability frameworks.
4. Markets might be crucial for mobilizing investments but are poor at reaching those that cannot afford technologies, services or participation in markets. Framing energy access as a public good and a right is critical to reaching the most excluded of communities.
