Low and Uneven Reach: Knowledge was restricted to a small cadre of technical staff in lead ministries. Most stakeholders received no NAPGCC updates in the 12 months prior to the assessment.

Ad-hoc Dissemination: Communication relied heavily on isolated CSO workshops rather than an institutionalized government strategy.

Shallow Understanding: Operational knowledge regarding specific objectives, sectoral targets, and implementation pathways remained low across subnational actors.

Fragmented Progress: Measurable results directly linked to NAPGCC were scarce. Implementation occurred indirectly through uncoordinated sectoral programs.

Donor Dependence: Outputs (e.g., clean cookstoves distribution, waste recycling livelihoods) occurred almost exclusively where external funding or CSO drivers existed.

Data Deficit: The total absence of sex-disaggregated monitoring data severely hindered tracking gender-transformative impact and accountability.

Absence of Secretariat: No dedicated, funded multi-stakeholder coordination platform existed at the federal level to drive cross-ministerial action.

Inactive Subnational Structures: Inter-ministerial committees in most states were inactive or non-existent. Focal units operated in isolation.

Exceptions: A few states made progress by creating formal inter-ministerial committees supported by technical working groups.

Zero Budget Lines: Virtual absence of dedicated budget lines for gender-climate action in federal or state budgets.

Capacity Deficits: MDAs lacked technical skills in gender analysis, gender-responsive budgeting, climate finance access, and project design.

Intersystemic Challenges: Chronic underfunding exacerbated low political prioritization and left vulnerable groups (PWDs, IDPs) overlooked.