What strategies are being used to integrate gender considerations into the design and implementation of sustainable livelihood interventions, and how effective are they in addressing the unique vulnerabilities of women in farming communities?
Short answer
Key finding
Adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) strategies contributed to women farmers’ economic empowerment by increasing incomes, improving access to productive resources, and enhancing decision-making capacities. Despite these improvements, undernutrition rates remained high in rural, low-income settings due to persistent gender inequities in access to land, income, and agricultural inputs. Effective gender-responsive strategies include financial support, access to stress-tolerant seeds, and women’s participation in cooperatives, which have shown promise in reducing women’s vulnerabilities in farming communities.
Short Summary
Women farmers adopted various CSA practices to enhance climate resilience, including diversified cropping (intercropping, multiple cropping, crop rotation, and agroforestry), native livestock production, and the use of organic fertilizers. Financial support, such as adaptation funds for purchasing livestock and seeds of stress-tolerant varieties, improved women’s agricultural productivity. Participation in producer cooperatives, savings groups, and credit programs further strengthened their economic position and decision-making capacity. While these interventions helped improve women’s income and food security, challenges remain, including gender-based labor burdens and inadequate household support for childcare and food preparation.
Long answer
Long Summary
What is this summary about? This summary presents evidence on gender-responsive strategies in sustainable livelihood interventions and their effectiveness in reducing the vulnerabilities of women in farming communities.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on two systematic reviews:
Harris-Fry H, Nur H, Shankar B, et al. The impact of gender equity in agriculture on nutritional status, diets, and household food security: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Global Health 2020;5:e002173. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7170429/pdf/bmjgh-2019-002173.pdf
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?
CSA interventions have played a significant role in improving women’s economic empowerment by increasing income, enhancing food security, and enabling greater participation in decision-making. Women’s access to financial resources, including village development funds and credit programs, allowed them to invest in small livestock and climate-resilient farming practices. Households in which women had increased income shares demonstrated better food security and higher food budget allocations.
The inclusion of women in agricultural cooperatives and producer groups encouraged investments in sustainable farming practices, further reducing economic vulnerabilities. Women’s ownership of livestock was positively associated with improved child nutrition outcomes, specifically height-for-age and weight-for-age z-scores, while men’s livestock ownership had no significant impact on child nutritional indicators.
However, gender disparities in labor distribution remained a major challenge. Women’s work burdens were significantly higher than men’s, particularly due to their dual responsibilities in agriculture and household duties. Limited male participation in food preparation and childcare negatively affected women’s dietary diversity and overall well-being.
This review highlights the effectiveness of gender-responsive interventions in addressing the unique vulnerabilities of women in farming communities. The findings show that CSA interventions, financial support mechanisms, and women’s participation in cooperatives have successfully improved income stability and food security. However, these strategies must be complemented by policies that address labor inequalities and provide social support for women farmers. Future interventions should integrate gender-sensitive approaches that redistribute labor burdens and enhance access to productive resources to achieve long-term resilience and sustainability.
Review summaries
The impact of gender equity in agriculture on nutritional status, diets, and household food security: a mixed-methods systematic review
Review
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
1. Key finding
Overall
Gender equity in agriculture influences household food security and nutrition outcomes, but its impact is heterogeneous. Income, land, and livestock ownership disparities contribute to nutritional inequities. While increasing women’s economic control can improve household food security, it does not always translate to increased dietary quality or better child nutrition outcomes. Work burdens on women, particularly due to a lack of household support for childcare and food preparation, are linked to poorer dietary diversity for women and children.
Women and girls related
Women’s access to agricultural resources, income, and employment opportunities is critical to improving household food security. However, gender disparities persist. The review found that increasing women’s income share improved household food security in some cases, particularly when derived from female-controlled crops. Women’s employment in the horticultural export sector was associated with lower food insecurity at the household level. However, high workloads for women, coupled with limited household support from men in food preparation and childcare, negatively affected women’s and children’s diets. While women’s livestock ownership was positively linked to improved child height-for-age and weight-for-age scores, it did not necessarily improve weight-for-height measures. Gender-based labor inequities continue to shape food access and nutrition outcomes.
2. Short summary
This systematic review examines the impact of gender equity in agriculture on household food security, nutrition, and dietary quality in low- and middle-income countries. The review analyzed 34 studies that assessed gender disparities in income, land ownership, livestock control, and labor burdens. Findings indicate that increased female income share and employment opportunities contribute to improved household food security. However, gendered workloads and lack of male household support for childcare and food preparation negatively affect women’s and children’s diets.
The review highlights that while an increase in women’s agricultural income leads to higher food budget allocations, this does not always result in improved dietary diversity or child nutritional outcomes. Women’s ownership of livestock was positively associated with better height-for-age and weight-for-age scores in children, but did not significantly impact weight-for-height measures. Overall, the review underscores the need for gender-responsive policies that address workload burdens and improve women’s control over agricultural resources.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Households in low- and middle-income countries with gender disparities in agriculture.
Intervention: Gender equity in agricultural income, land ownership, livestock access, and labor participation.
Outcomes: Household food security, dietary quality, and nutrition.
Study design: Mixed-methods systematic review.
3.2 Risk of bias
Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using an adapted Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
3.3 Publication bias
The review included peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, and working papers, with some studies having a critical risk of bias.
3.4 Findings
Increases in women’s income share were linked to greater household food budget allocations and reduced food insecurity, particularly when women were employed in horticultural export sectors. Shifting land and livestock ownership from men to women also improved household food shares, highlighting the importance of women's control over productive assets. Women’s ownership of livestock was associated with improved child nutrition outcomes, specifically better height-for-age and weight-for-age scores, though it had no significant effect on weight-for-height measures. However, higher labor burdens on women—especially when lacking male support for childcare and domestic tasks—were tied to poorer dietary outcomes for both women and children. While rising incomes contributed to greater food security, the strain of labor-intensive responsibilities often limited the potential for improved nutrition.
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)? | 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) | Yes | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? No | 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? | Yes | |
| 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? | Yes | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 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? | Yes | |
| 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) | High |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 10 |
| Women | 13 |
| Intra-household | 4 |
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 examines gender outcomes resulting from women’s adaptation strategies in response to cultural norms, reproductive and productive roles, and gender disparities in agriculture. The study highlights how adopting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices has contributed to women farmers’ economic empowerment by increasing incomes and improving decision-making capacities. The analysis was conducted using the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) and the Women Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI), revealing that women’s access to quality seeds, livestock, and financial resources has positively impacted their livelihoods.
Women and girls related
Women in climate-smart villages (CSVs) benefited from increased incomes and greater involvement in household decision-making as a result of CSA adoption. They played a crucial role in agricultural production, particularly in crop diversification, intercropping, and seed preservation. Access to small livestock and stress-tolerant crop varieties further enabled them to improve food security at the household level. However, gender disparities persist, with cultural expectations and limited access to land ownership continuing to hinder women’s full participation in sustainable agricultural practices.
2. Short summary
This meta-analysis synthesizes findings from 69 gender-related studies to assess how climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices impact gender outcomes in five Southeast Asian countries. The analysis explores women’s economic empowerment through improved agricultural practices and financial security.
CSA options include crop diversification, native livestock farming, seed conservation, and alternative fertilization techniques. Women farmers who participated in CSA programs received quality seeds and livestock from the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), increasing their agricultural productivity and income. Financial mechanisms such as the CSV Adaptation Fund and Village Development Fund provided rural women with financial security against climate shocks.
Participation in producer cooperatives, savings groups, and non-government organizations enabled women to gain leadership roles and influence agricultural decision-making. The findings underscore the importance of supporting gender-responsive climate adaptation strategies to enhance sustainability and resilience in agriculture.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women farmers in climate-smart villages 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 led to increased agricultural productivity, higher earnings, and greater involvement in decision-making over farming practices and household income use, particularly in Climate-Smart Villages (CSVs). Shared ownership of key assets—such as homes, livestock, and farming tools—improved women’s resource access and economic agency. Financial support through mechanisms like the CSV Adaptation Fund enabled women to purchase small livestock and gain financial training, while Village Development Funds and Savings Groups in Cambodia provided critical financial stability, reducing the need to sell assets during climate shocks. Participation in agricultural cooperatives and producer groups enhanced women’s capacity to invest in CSA, while involvement in savings groups improved financial literacy and investment decisions. Livestock farming, especially poultry and goats, offered women low-labor, high-return options that contributed to food security and income resilience.
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 |