What role does gendered access to financial resources, such as credit, subsidies, or insurance, play in shaping the capacity of women farmers to invest in and adopt sustainable adaptation interventions?
Short answer
Key finding
The adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) options contributed to women farmers’ economic empowerment by increasing their incomes. Women were the primary recipients of financial support for purchasing small livestock, such as chickens and goats. Access to credit provided financial protection against climate-related shocks and helped rural communities secure income and productive assets without resorting to costly coping strategies, such as selling assets, which could compromise long-term resilience.
Short summary
The adoption of CSA options contributed to women farmers' economic empowerment by increasing their incomes through higher yields enabled by CSA knowledge, training, and access to quality seeds and livestock from the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). CSA practices included diversified agriculture (intercropping, multiple cropping, agroforestry), native livestock production, seed saving, and the use of alternative fertilizers such as animal manure and green leaf manure. Access to financial resources, including the Village Development Fund and Savings Groups (VDFSG), provided financial security against climate-related shocks, allowing women to safeguard their income and assets without resorting to distress sales.
Long answer
Long summary:
What is this summary about? This summary presents evidence on how access to financial resources, such as credit, subsidies, or insurance, helps women farmers adopt sustainable adaptation interventions.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on one systematic review:
Verzosa, F., Gonsalves, J. F., Barbon, W. J., & Monville-Oro, E. (2022). Gender Outcomes Harvesting in Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security: A meta-analysis. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/44c424d4-1310-42f1-9450-b9207b1320d6/content
What are the main findings?
The adoption of CSA options contributed to women farmers' economic empowerment by increasing their incomes. Women, along with their families, jointly owned major assets such as houses, livestock, and mobile phones, enhancing their financial security. Women in climate-smart villages (CSVs) reported increased participation in decision-making on income from agricultural production, farming practices, and children’s education.
Women were the primary recipients of financial support through the CSV Adaptation Fund, which enabled them to purchase small livestock and receive capacity-building training. Additionally, in Cambodia, the Village Development Fund and Savings Groups (VDFSG) played a crucial role in financially supporting women farmers, providing them with credit access that shielded them from climate-related economic shocks. These financial tools helped safeguard rural women’s incomes and assets, reducing the need for harmful coping mechanisms, such as selling livestock or land, which could hinder long-term sustainability.
This review highlights how gendered access to financial resources significantly influences women's ability to invest in and adopt sustainable adaptation interventions. Women farmers who had access to financial support, credit, and insurance were more likely to adopt CSA practices and invest in resilience-building strategies. The availability of savings groups and adaptation funds provided women with a safety net, allowing them to recover from climate-induced shocks without sacrificing critical assets. Additionally, access to financial training and subsidies helped women make informed investment decisions, enabling them to participate more actively in climate adaptation efforts. These findings underscore the need for policies that enhance women's access to financial resources, empowering them to transition toward sustainable and climate-resilient agricultural practices.
Review summaries
Gender Outcomes Harvesting in Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security: A meta-analysis.
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
1. Key finding
Overall
This meta-analysis focused on gender outcomes resulting from women's adaptation strategies to climate change constraints, which stem from cultural norms, reproductive and productive responsibilities, and gender disparities contributing to economic disempowerment. The study utilized the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) and the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) to assess women's progress in agriculture and livestock management. Findings show that the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) options significantly increased women’s incomes through improved yields and resource inputs such as quality seeds and livestock provided by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR).
Women and girls related
The analysis highlights that women farmers identified and adopted CSA options proficiently, ranking them highly in terms of knowledge and application. The primary gender outcome observed was economic empowerment, with improved agricultural practices leading to increased financial stability. Women were key beneficiaries of the CSV Adaptation Fund, which supported the purchase of small livestock such as chickens and goats, enhancing household nutrition and income. Additionally, women engaged in leadership roles within agricultural cooperatives, savings groups, and producer organizations, further strengthening their decision-making power in agricultural and financial matters.
2. Short summary
This meta-analysis examines gender outcomes linked to the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices in five Southeast Asian countries. The study assessed 69 gender-related reports under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCFAS), focusing on women's economic empowerment through improved agricultural practices.
CSA options included diversified crop production (intercropping, multiple cropping, agroforestry), livestock farming using native species, seed saving, and alternative fertilization methods such as green manure. Women farmers were provided with stress-tolerant crop varieties and hands-on training to enhance farm productivity. The establishment of financial safety nets, such as the Village Development Fund and Savings Groups, played a critical role in shielding rural women from climate-induced financial shocks.
Moreover, women’s participation in leadership roles within agricultural cooperatives and financial organizations enhanced CSA adoption and investment decisions. The study underscores the significance of supporting gender-inclusive climate adaptation strategies to improve resilience and sustainability in agriculture.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women farmers in climate-smart villages (CSVs) in Southeast Asia
Intervention: Adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices
Outcomes: Economic empowerment, improved access to agricultural inputs, and leadership development
Study design: Meta-analysis of gender-focused studies on climate change, agriculture, and food security
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Women’s adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices significantly contributed to their economic empowerment by boosting agricultural productivity and income generation. Increased earnings from CSA enhanced women’s autonomy in household financial decisions and enabled greater involvement in areas such as farming practices, money management, and children’s education. Access to jointly owned household assets like livestock, mobile phones, and farming equipment further strengthened their capacity to manage agricultural activities. Women were key beneficiaries of adaptation funds, which supported the purchase of livestock and inputs, while savings groups and village development funds offered additional financial security against climate shocks. Participation in agricultural cooperatives and producer groups not only increased investment in CSA but also elevated women’s decision-making power. Livestock farming, particularly poultry and goats, emerged as a valuable adaptation strategy, offering low-labor, high-return assets that supported both food security and income stability.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | No | |
| 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? | No | |
| 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) | No | |
| 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? | No | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Na | |
| 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? | No | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Low |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 13 |
| Women | 12 |
| Intra-household | 0 |