
Women's voices should be at forefront of policy, says UN climate champion
'Women leaders in green tech and the green economy remain a minority, representing 30 percent of climate negotiations and less than 3 percent at the helm of tech companies,' said Sarah El-Battouty, global ambassador for the UNFCCC Climate Change High-Level Champions.
El-Battouty spoke to Arab News on the sidelines of the Sustainability Forum Middle East in Manama, Bahrain, where she attended the evening event titled 'Women's Leadership in Climate and Sustainability — Amplifying the Voices of MENA's Changemakers.'
The event, held in partnership with Bahrain's Supreme Council for Women and the Supreme Council for Environment, aims to showcase the contributions of female experts from across the MENA region.
El-Battouty, who is also chairwoman of ECONSULT Sustainable Architecture, highlighted the importance of diverse leadership, inclusive policymaking and technology in addressing the climate crisis.
'The role of the UNFCCC Climate Change High-Level Champions is critical to the policymaking and way forward for climate action and dialogue between stakeholders,' she said.
El-Battouty said that for many years, climate discussions were dominated by governments and financial institutions, leaving the private sector as mere implementers of policies.
She shed light on the underrepresentation of women in the green economy and tech sectors and the need for their inclusion.
'Among them, women have been selected on merit to put forward the case of solutions led and created by women for women and broader communities from all over the world,' El-Battouty said.
She said that while women played a transformative role in driving climate action, they faced significant economic and social barriers, particularly in access to climate financing.
El-Battouty said that challenges for women-led green initiatives in the MENA region often stemmed from systemic barriers rather than purely socio-cultural norms.
'There are hidden root causes less prominent than social norms verified as key limitations,' she said.
Women-led initiatives struggle to secured financial resources due to gender biases in financing systems, El-Battouty said.
'They are financed in smaller installments and often encouraged to have a male executive to unlock further financing.'
She added that limited ownership of assets, such as land, restricted women from securing collateral for loans. 'Many women risk their savings or become indebted from the outset.'
El-Battouty added that unequal access to STEM education reduced opportunities for women to lead in technical and environmental fields.
'Less than 19 percent of women enter STEM education,' she said.
El-Battouty said that advancing inclusive policies addressing the social dimensions of climate change — such as gender equality, education and community resilience — was essential.
'These policies ensure that marginalized groups, including women and children, are part of the solution and recognize that as the most vulnerable to loss and damage and migration, women's voices should be at the forefront of holistic policy frameworks,' she said.
El-Battouty called for accessible and affordable technology to empower women across all demographics.
'Women engage collaborative approaches, especially with other women, because they recognize them as stakeholders of climate actions, ensuring their livelihoods are sustained and information is learned, co-developed and passed on to generations,' she said.
El-Battouty said that women were critical advocates for inclusive and sustainable practices in industries such as housing and construction, which were responsible for nearly 40 percent of global emissions according to the UN.
'It is women in the industry who have advocated for the inclusion of rural villages, low-income housing and indigenous communities to be included in climate-resilient intervention and green buildings,' El-Battouty said.
Despite challenges, she celebrated the achievements of women leaders in advancing inclusivity and sustainability.
'Women in climate take big risks and face adverse resistance, however, their activism is seeing disruptive and positive steps to be inclusive and leave no one behind,' El-Battouty said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Al Arabiya
17 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
After the strikes, Iran's only path may be a deal
Many might assume that after Israel and the United States launched a wave of devastating strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic would retreat from diplomacy, hardened and humiliated, unwilling to engage in negotiations. On the surface, that may seem logical – why would a country whose pride and sovereignty were violated seek to sit down with its attackers at the negotiating table? But that logic misreads the internal dynamics of the Iranian government and the grave pressure it is under. In reality, despite the recent destruction of key nuclear infrastructure and the exposure of its military vulnerabilities, Iran is more desperate than ever to reach a deal with the United States. Not because it wants to – but because it has no choice. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. At the top of the list of pressures is the threat of the reimposition of UN 'snapback' sanctions, a mechanism embedded in the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These sanctions are not just symbolic slaps on the wrist – they are devastating economic measures that would further cripple Iran's already fragile economy. Over the past several weeks, the so-called EU3 – Britain, France, and Germany – have made it unequivocally clear that if Iran fails to reach a new agreement with the US by the end of August 2025, they will initiate the snapback process at the United Nations. This is no idle threat; the European powers are aligned and prepared, and Iran knows it. To understand the gravity of this threat, it's essential to grasp what the snapback sanctions entail. When the JCPOA was originally negotiated, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2231, which lifted many of the previous multilateral sanctions that had crushed Iran's economy throughout the 2000s. However, this resolution included a safety mechanism known as the 'snapback' clause, allowing any of the participating parties to reimpose those sanctions if Iran was found to be in serious violation of its commitments. The snapback is unique in that it bypasses the standard Security Council veto process. If a participating country files a complaint and follows the procedural steps – including a 15-day dispute resolution window and referral to the UN Security Council – the reimposition of sanctions is automatic unless the Council affirmatively votes to continue lifting them. In other words, once the process starts, Iran is powerless to stop it. If snapback sanctions are triggered, the consequences for Iran would be catastrophic. All the UN measures lifted under the JCPOA would come roaring back into effect. This includes a comprehensive arms embargo, a prohibition on ballistic missile development, restrictions on nuclear technology transfers, asset freezes on key Iranian officials, and, most devastatingly, a severe blow to Iran's energy sector. Oil exports, which represent the backbone of the Iranian economy, would be strangled once again. International banking and trade would be further isolated, and European and Asian companies would face secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran. In short, the modest economic relief Iran has clung to since the collapse of the original deal would evaporate entirely, pushing the country deeper into financial crisis. The Iranian government knows this. Its leaders have no illusions about the implications. But the looming economic pain is only one half of the equation. The second, and perhaps even more urgent, reason that Iran is most likely desperate for a deal is that it is at its weakest strategic and military point in decades. The twelve-day war in June 2025, marked by a series of Israeli and American airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure, exposed just how vulnerable the government truly is. Despite years of chest-beating rhetoric and boasts of self-sufficiency, Iran was unable to defend its most sensitive and critical sites. The Fordow underground enrichment facility was severely damaged. The Natanz facility suffered multiple direct hits. Missile and drone factories were either disabled or wiped out entirely. Iran's air defense systems failed to intercept much of the incoming firepower, and the leadership was left stunned, humiliated, and scrambling to respond. The consequences of these attacks go beyond material losses. They shattered the illusion that Iran could maintain a credible deterrent through its nuclear program. Tehran had long used the ambiguity around its enrichment levels and breakout timelines as a form of leverage, signaling to the world that it could, if cornered, dash toward a bomb. But now, with many of its enrichment facilities either destroyed or under surveillance, that leverage is gone. The United States and Israel have demonstrated both the capability and the willingness to strike again. President Donald Trump has made it clear that he is in 'no rush to talk' and is prepared to authorize further military action if necessary. Iran's nuclear bluff has been called – and it has little to show for it. Faced with this reality, Iran sees a deal with the United States not as a diplomatic win but as a necessary act of survival. Tehran hopes that by reaching an agreement, it can secure certain assurances – chief among them, the end of further Israeli or American attacks. In the minds of Iranian decision-makers, a deal would buy time, restore a degree of international legitimacy, and potentially open the door to limited economic relief before the snapback hammer falls. They are not negotiating from a position of strength; they are cornered, exposed, and deeply anxious about the government's future stability. Internally, the political calculus has also shifted. Iranian leaders are not naive; they understand the United States holds nearly all the cards. But they also know that continued defiance could lead to more strikes, deeper sanctions, and the eventual unraveling of the Islamic Republic itself. Meanwhile, Iran's traditional allies – Russia and China – have been noticeably quiet. Moscow, bogged down in its own quagmire in Ukraine and facing increasing Western pressure, has offered little more than rhetorical support. Tehran is effectively isolated. It's only path out of the tightening noose is through Washington. In conclusion, while it may seem counterintuitive that Iran would seek to negotiate in the wake of such a humiliating military defeat, that very humiliation is what makes diplomacy imperative. Iran is not entering talks from a place of power. It is entering them from a place of desperation. The government is facing the reimposition of crippling international sanctions, a shattered military posture, and a complete loss of nuclear leverage. Its economy is teetering. Its allies are distant. Its leadership is nervous. For Iran's rulers, a deal is no longer a strategic choice – it is a matter of government survival. That is why, despite everything, they will likely be so eager to talk.


Arab News
3 days ago
- Arab News
Global banking rules are failing emerging markets
In an era of shrinking resources for development finance, global policymakers must shift their focus to making better use of existing funds. Identifying and removing regulatory barriers that hinder the efficient deployment of capital to emerging markets and developing economies is a good place to start. The Basel III framework, developed in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, has played a crucial role in preventing another systemic collapse. But it has also inadvertently discouraged banks from financing infrastructure projects in emerging markets and developing economies. At the same time, advanced economies, with debt-to-gross domestic product ratios at historic highs, face mounting fiscal pressures. Servicing these debts consumes a growing share of public budgets just as governments must ramp up defense spending and boost economic competitiveness, resulting in cuts to foreign aid. Together, these pressures underscore the urgent need to mobilize more private capital for investment in emerging markets and developing economies. Building resilient and sustainable economies will require transformational investments across the developing world in infrastructure, technology, health and education. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, emerging markets and developing economies must raise more than $3 trillion annually beyond what they can raise through public revenues to meet critical development and climate targets. Amid these challenges, prudential regulation impedes the ability of emerging markets and developing economies to raise private capital. This issue can be traced back to the global financial crisis, which wiped out $15 trillion in global GDP between 2008 and 2011. Since the crisis stemmed from weak capital and liquidity controls, as well as the unchecked growth of innovative and opaque financial products, Basel III was designed to close regulatory loopholes and bolster oversight, particularly in response to the rise of the nonbank financial sector. While the revised framework addresses the vulnerabilities that triggered the 2008 crisis, its focus on advanced economies and systemically important financial institutions inadvertently imposes several requirements that restrict capital flows to emerging markets and developing economies. For example, Basel III requires banks to hold disproportionately high levels of capital to cover the perceived risks of financing infrastructure projects in emerging markets and developing economies. But these risks are often overestimated. The riskiest period of an infrastructure project is typically the preoperational phase. By the fifth year, when projects begin generating revenue, risks tend to decline significantly. In fact, the data suggests that, by year five, the marginal default rates for development loans are lower than those for corporate loans extended to investment-grade borrowers. But despite the lower risk profile, banks are required to hold more capital against development finance loans than they do against loans to unrated companies over the life of the project. Insurers encounter similar regulatory barriers. Under the EU's Solvency II framework, an insurer investing in an emerging market and developing economy infrastructure project faces a capital charge of 49 percent — nearly double the 25 percent required for a comparable project in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. Yet there is no empirical justification for this unequal treatment. Historical data show that infrastructure loans in emerging markets and developing economies perform just as well as those in advanced economies. Even when multilateral development banks share the risk, the resulting exposures often remain subject to a 100 percent capital charge. Vera Songwe, Jendayi Frazer and Peter Blair Henry The significantly higher capital costs that banks incur when making infrastructure loans to emerging markets and developing economies deter them from supporting transformative, high-impact projects, steering capital toward safer, low-impact investments. Blended finance — often touted as a promising path to de-risking investments to emerging markets and developing economies — is also hampered by prudential regulations that impede effective collaboration between multilateral development banks and private sector entities. Multilateral development banks, backed by guarantees from developed economy shareholders and AAA credit ratings, can help reduce capital costs by co-financing projects in emerging markets and developing economies and providing lenders with additional assurances. But even when multilateral development banks share the risk, the resulting exposures often remain subject to a 100 percent capital charge, undermining the very benefits that multilateral engagement is meant to provide. Moreover, only a limited number of multilateral development banks currently qualify for zero percent risk weighting under Basel III. Expanding the list would enable commercial banks to work with a broader range of multilateral development banks, increasing the impact of each taxpayer dollar invested in development aid. Compounding the problem, even eligible multilateral development banks are required to provide an 'unconditional' guarantee for a zero percent risk weight to apply. But it remains unclear how regulators define unconditional and this ambiguity prevents commercial banks from making full use of multinational development bank risk-sharing tools. To be sure, Basel III's foundational principles are sound. Capital buffers and liquidity ratios that reflect institutional risk profiles are essential for maintaining financial stability. But several rules within the otherwise well-designed Basel III framework limit emerging markets and developing economies' ability to pursue sustainable development while doing little to mitigate systemic risk. At a time when net capital inflows to emerging markets and developing economies are declining due to debt-service obligations to advanced-economy creditors, prudential regulations must not inadvertently impede private capital flows to productive projects in these countries. To improve the regulatory framework for emerging markets and developing economies, the G20 must take four key actions as a platform for cooperative leadership. First, recalibrate capital requirements for infrastructure project finance to reflect real-world default performance, particularly in the postconstruction phase. Second, expand the list of multilateral development banks eligible for zero percent risk-weighting under Basel III to include high-performing regional institutions, such as the Africa Finance Corporation, which have investment-grade ratings. Third, clarify the definition of 'unconditional guarantees' so that more multilateral development bank-backed risk-sharing instruments can qualify for favorable regulatory treatment. And lastly, introduce capital charge discounts for blended finance structures co-financed by A-rated institutions, with the level of discount varying by rating. These reforms do not require new taxpayer commitments; they simply align regulation with actual risk. Implementing them would crowd in more private investment, reduce borrowing costs for developing countries and accelerate progress toward transformative development that creates much-needed jobs. The G20 must address these regulatory roadblocks so that capital can flow to where it delivers the greatest value. Reaching consensus on how to lower capital costs for emerging-market economies is one of the top priorities for G20 finance chiefs. Reforming the Basel III framework would be a relatively low-cost, high-impact way to mobilize investment, drive job creation and support sustainable growth.


Leaders
3 days ago
- Leaders
Iran Could Hold Nuclear Talks with Europeans Next Week: Tasnim
Iran could hold talks with Britain, France and Germany next week on Tehran's nuclear program, according to Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency. This move comes after European powers threatened Tehran that if it failed to resume negotiations, Europe would reactivate UN sanction, Reuters reported. 'The principle of talks has been agreed upon, but consultations are continuing on the time and place of the talks. The country in which the talks could be held next week has not been finalized,' Tasnim reported, quoting a source informed on the matter. Reactivating UN Sanctions On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told his European counterparts that they have no moral or legal grounds for reimposing UN sanctions. 'If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they (have) absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds,' Araghchi said on X. He also noted Tehran is ready for a new round of talks if the other side is willing to reach 'a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial nuclear deal.' Araqchi's statements came after his conference call with his British, French and German counterparts as well as European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. During the call, the European diplomats told Araqchi of 'their determination to use the 'snapback' mechanism — which allows for the reimposition of all international sanctions against Iran — in the absence of concrete progress' towards a new deal on Iran's nuclear program 'by the end of the summer', the French Foreign Ministry said. Upcoming Fresh Talks Crucially, a German diplomatic source confirmed to AFP on Sunday that Britain, France and Germany are planning to hold fresh talks with Iran in the coming days on its nuclear program. The speculation about Tehran's nuclear program has been increasing since Israel bombed Iranians nuclear facilities on June 13. The US became directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran on June 22 after launching airstrikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Related Topics: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Hits Northern Iran Europe Gives Iran Deadline: Resume Nuclear Talks or Face Sanctions Iran to Hold Talks with China, Russia at SCO Summit Short link : Post Views: 36