How do cultural norms and social structures in farming communities create gender-specific vulnerabilities that affect the willingness or ability of women and men to engage in climate-smart agriculture?
Short answer
Key finding
Men and women adapt differently to climate-smart agriculture (CSA) due to cultural influences that shape labor roles, decision-making power, and access to resources. Conservation agriculture (CA), a key component of CSA, has both positive and negative impacts on labor demands for men and women. While CA can reduce workload in some areas, it also limits food security options, affecting women’s capacity to manage household nutrition. Gender norms further determine who adopts CSA techniques, with men often taking over lucrative farming opportunities, reducing women's autonomy over land and crop choices.
Short summary
Cultural norms and social structures significantly impact the adoption of CSA by men and women. The adoption of CA, for example, has reduced the time women spend on weeding but has also introduced new labor-intensive tasks, such as manure transportation and the use of heavy farming tools. Women in Zambia, for instance, described the ‘chaka’ hoe as physically demanding, limiting their ability to perform other domestic responsibilities. Additionally, CA discourages intercropping, which is essential for food security in many farming households. This shift has forced women to spend additional time and resources securing alternative food sources. While some mechanization efforts, such as the use of the ‘Magoye’ ripper, have helped alleviate labor burdens for women, cultural constraints still limit their full participation in CSA adoption.
Long answer
Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary presents evidence on how cultural norms and social structures shape the adoption of CSA and create gender-specific vulnerabilities in farming communities.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on one systematic reviews:
Wekesah, F. M., Mutua, E. N., & Izugbara, C. O. (2019). Gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 17(1), 78-91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/14735903.2019.1567245?needAccess=true
What are the main findings?
Cultural expectations and gender norms shape labor roles and access to CSA practices. In Zambia, for example, women use the ‘chaka’ hoe, a tool heavier than traditional implements, making soil preparation extremely labor-intensive. Women reported that using this tool physically exhausted them, limiting their ability to complete other household responsibilities.
The introduction of mechanization in CA, such as rippers and direct seeders, has led to shifts in labor roles. While mechanization has reduced some labor demands, it has also displaced poor men and women who previously relied on manual weeding jobs for income. In Zambia, reports of women using the ‘Magoye’ ripper indicate an increasing role in land preparation, which traditionally belonged to men. While this shift can be empowering, it also places additional burdens on women who must balance farming with household duties.
Additionally, herbicide use in CA has reduced the need for manual weeding, further impacting women and children who relied on this task as a source of income. Similarly, manure-based fertilization requires extensive labor, with women and children responsible for transporting manure to fields.
This review highlights how cultural norms and social structures influence gender-specific vulnerabilities in CSA adoption. Women face higher labor demands due to cultural expectations that they manage both farming and household responsibilities. Their ability to engage in CSA is further constrained by unequal access to resources, including financial support and training. In some cases, women’s adoption of CSA practices has led to increased food security, particularly when intercropping is involved. However, restrictive cultural norms continue to limit women's decision-making power in agriculture. To enhance gender equity in CSA adoption, targeted policies must address labor constraints, resource allocation, and cultural barriers preventing women from fully benefiting from sustainable practices.
Review summaries
Gender and conservation agriculture in subSaharan Africa: a systematic review
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
1. Key finding
Overall
Conservation agriculture (CA) comprises three core principles: minimal tillage, permanent soil cover, and crop rotation. Evidence suggests that CA enhances agricultural productivity, reduces labor burdens, and improves soil quality. However, gender dynamics influence the adoption of CA, with women facing both opportunities and challenges. While CA has increased women’s incomes and participation in agricultural decision-making, it has also led to land and crop dispossession by men once farming becomes commercially viable. Additionally, CA increases workloads and health risks for women, requiring targeted interventions to ensure gender-equitable benefits.
Women and girls related
CA has had mixed effects on women and girls. On the positive side, CA has increased women’s incomes, improved their involvement in agricultural decision-making, and enhanced household food security. Women’s participation in CA programs has provided them with new employment opportunities, skills, and knowledge, making them more resilient to climate-related shocks. However, these benefits have been accompanied by significant risks.
CA has led to instances of men taking control of land and crops once they become profitable, displacing women from traditionally cultivated plots. Women’s workloads have increased due to labor-intensive CA practices such as basin digging and manure transportation. Additionally, health risks associated with the use of heavy tools like the ‘chaka’ hoe have resulted in physical strain and injuries for women. Ensuring gender-responsive CA interventions is crucial to addressing these inequalities and maximizing benefits for women farmers.
2. Short summary
This review examines the intersection of gender and conservation agriculture (CA) in sub-Saharan Africa. While CA has the potential to enhance productivity and sustainability, its gendered impacts vary. The review highlights that CA adoption can increase women’s incomes and food security but also introduces risks of land dispossession and increased labor demands.
Women’s participation in CA is shaped by cultural norms, resource access, and decision-making structures. In some cases, CA has empowered women by expanding their decision-making roles in farm management. However, CA-related practices such as minimum tillage and herbicide application have also reduced employment opportunities for women and poor men who rely on manual weeding. Additionally, the adoption of new tools such as the ‘chaka’ hoe has resulted in health risks due to the physical strain involved.
To maximize the benefits of CA while minimizing gender disparities, targeted strategies are needed. These include ensuring direct support to women farmers, providing gender-responsive agricultural inputs, and promoting joint decision-making in farming households.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Studies on gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa.
Intervention: Conservation agriculture (CA), including minimum tillage, permanent soil cover, and crop rotation.
Outcomes: Impact of CA on gender roles, labor dynamics, food security, and incomes.
Study design: Systematic review of studies from Zambia, Zimbabwe, and other sub-Saharan African countries.
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed.
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed.
3.4 Findings
Conservation agriculture (CA) has brought both benefits and challenges for women, particularly around gender roles, food security, and labor demands. While CA’s potential for higher incomes has encouraged adoption, it has also led to instances where men displaced women from land traditionally used for subsistence farming, as seen in Zambia where groundnuts—once a women’s crop—became male-dominated when commercialized. Earnings from men’s cash crops were often reinvested in inputs rather than improving household food security, and CA’s discouragement of intercropping limited women’s ability to maintain dietary diversity, prompting some to dis-adopt CA. Although CA expanded women’s decision-making roles, especially in female-headed households, it also intensified their labor burden. Tools like the ‘chaka’ hoe caused physical strain, while mechanization with the ‘Magoye’ ripper shifted more land preparation to women. Herbicide use reduced weeding jobs, affecting income for women and poor men, and manure-based fertilization added to the workload of women and children tasked with transporting manure. These labor-intensive demands, paired with traditional gender expectations, increased health risks and undermined women’s well-being despite gains in participation and productivity.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | Yes | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | No | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | No | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | No | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Medium |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 5 |
| Women | 3 |
| Intra-household | 0 |