 Indonesia is feeling the impact of climate change in many ways, especially for more frequent and destructive natural disasters such as floods, droughts, and landslides. People experience the impact of climate change differently. Poor people, particularly poor women, are more vulnerable. This is because in many cases, women face challenges to access valuable resources like land, education, and finance. These things are needed to help people adapt to changes in their lives and to respond to crisis caused by climate change or other changes. Indonesia has made great strides in improving equality between women and men. There are social and structural barriers that still limit women's empowerment. These barriers need to be acknowledged and overcome. To help people in Indonesia face climate change, funding is needed for climate action. This means projects and programs that help people adapt or adjust to climate change and mitigate or reduce greenhouse gases that are causing climate change. Indonesia has several public financial mechanisms that can be used to fund climate actions. These mechanisms have existed for a while and climate change may not be their main objective. However, they can be used to fund activities such as planting trees, building water wells, building more energy efficient transfer systems, or installing renewable energy sources. All these are climate action because they help people adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gases. Only since 2016 that Indonesia has started accounting for how much of the state budget is allocated for climate action. This process is called climate budget tagging. According to data from the Ministry of Finance, Indonesia spent 8.7 billion US dollars or 5.4% of the country's total budget on climate action in 2018. Now that we realize Indonesia has spent billions in climate action, it is important that it can help women and men, the rich and the poor, equally. We found, however, that the way these funds are being allocated often do not take into account that men and women, the rich and the poor, have different needs. For example, some funds may want to reduce poverty by building forestry-based businesses. But you can't loan, for example, some funds may want to reduce poverty by building forestry-based businesses. But to get loans from this fund, people need to have business skills. Know about forestry and be part of cooperatives. And even if everyone is welcome to apply, it is practically impossible for women or the rural poor to get this loan because they can't meet the requirements. Women can be powerful forces in a society if they are not seen as just victims of climate change. They are contributing every day with their knowledge and their work to make the community and households resilient to climate change. But women's actions are often silent. In the background, unseen, unheard, unpaid. Climate change is a big issue affecting everyone, and we need everyone to help face it. To do that, climate finance mechanisms need to see and hear women and men equally and make sure they both benefit from funding the local level. Climate finance mechanisms need to be aware of these gender-related risks and limitations. Women may not be in institutions and meetings where decisions are made on how to use public funds. They may not get the information about the funds coming in and how they can access them. Even if there are women in these institutions and meetings, their views and thoughts may not be taken seriously or may not be expressed publicly due to traditions and cultures that define what women can and cannot do. Some financing mechanisms put conditions or requirements that may be much harder for women to fulfill. For example, land ownership or business skills. The belief that some decisions are much too technical for issues such as gender to be relevant. In fact, every technical decision has impact on people. For example, in projects on land rehabilitation, we often only think about which tree species grows the best, the fastest. But then, we should also think what trees bring the most benefits to women and men, and who owns the land, Who makes decisions? Who will end up working most in keeping these trees standing? Would planting these trees end up burdening people without giving them benefits? The trainings provided by local technical staff and extension services to communities about climate actions may be attended mostly by men. Trainers may use words that are incomprehensible to people, especially women, who are not used to getting such training. This means, even if there is a lot of women and men being trained, women may be less likely to understand the training. Certainly not because women are less intelligent, it is because the training is not designed to make sure everyone understands. There are some beliefs that what is good for the community is automatically good for women, but this is not always the case. There is a lack of capacity-building to stakeholders at all levels on how to integrate gender and climate change adaptation and mitigation actions. What should be done? Both women and men in all other groups in a society have different but important insights and experiences to contribute to designing and implementing equitable and effective climate change actions. And they should be fully included in decision-making relating to climate change financing at all levels. C4 and UNDP work together to provide practical solutions and also indicators on how to implement effective gender-responsive climate finance.