Gender, Climate Change and Livelihoods: Vulnerabilities and Adaptations

By Margaret Alston, Muhammad Asaduzzaman, Aden Aw-Hassan and 19 more

This book applies a gendered lens to evaluate the dynamic linkages between climate change and livelihoods in developing countries. It examines how climate change affects women and men in distinct ways, and what the implications are for earning income and accessing the natural, social, economic, and political resources required to survive and thrive. The book's contributing authors analyze the gendered impact of climate change on different types of livelihoods, in distinct contexts, including urban and rural, and in diverse geographic locations, including Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. It focuses on understanding how public policies and power dynamics shape gendered vulnerabilities and impacts, how gender influences coping and adaptation mechanisms, and how civil society organizations incorporate gender into their climate advocacy strategies.

This book:

-Provides cutting-edge scholarship on an underrepresented area of climate change: the gendered impacts of climate change on livelihoods.
-Covers a range of different types of livelihoods and geographic locations.
-Involves contributors from a diverse array of cultural and scholarly backgrounds, bringing contrasting perspectives to the topic.

This book is recommended for scholars, students, and practitioners who study or work in fields such as climate change, gender, livelihoods, public policy, economic development, and agriculture.

• Language: English
• Publisher: CAB International
• Release date: Jul 26, 2021
• ISBN: 9781789247077

Book preview

1 An Introduction to Gender, Climate Change and Livelihoods

J. Eastin and K. Dupuy

Climate change is imposing significant and lasting changes to the lives and livelihoods of much of the world’s population. The accumulation of greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere is increasing global temperatures, altering weather patterns, and magnifying the intensity and duration of climatic disasters (IPCC, 2014). The consequences of these changes – water shortages, food insecurity, social instability, threats to health and safety, and loss of life – are dire, especially for the most marginalized and vulnerable. Agricultural sectors and states that rely on agricultural production face acute risk because of the sensitivity of agriculture to climate disruption and because of the vulnerability of those who rely on it for subsistence and livelihoods (Wiebe et al., 2019). Even if rigorous and comprehensive mitigation initiatives were to suddenly take hold within the world’s most profligate GHG emitting states – a far-fetched scenario, at best – climate change has already generated tremendous pressure on the social, cultural, and natural resources necessary to survive and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

While the threat of climate change is global, the distribution of threat is both unequal and inequitable: unequal because some states are at greater risk than others, and inequitable because states facing the greatest risk tend to be the least responsible for causing climate change and least capable of mitigating or adapting to its effects (Okereke, 2010). These inequalities and inequities are also reflected within states as well as within vulnerable societal groups. The poor and marginalized are in greater danger than those with superior means because they are more exposed to climate change; more reliant on livelihoods that are sensitive to climate disruption; have fewer resources to invest in livelihood diversification strategies or other adaptations; and often lack the clout necessary to compel robust political action. Disparities persist even within impoverished groups, the most striking and broadly applicable of which are disparities between women and men (Goh, 2012; Eastin, 2018). Indeed, recognition that climate change poses greater risks for women has fostered the view of climate change as a ‘double injustice,’ a sobriquet signifying both the economic and gendered nature of climate change impacts (Otzelberger, 2014).

By ‘gender’ we refer to ‘the characteristics of women and men… that are socially constructed… [which] include norms, behaviors, and roles associated with being a woman or man’ (WHO, 2020, online). Climate change is a gender issue because gender reflects power – most critically, the power of resource access and control, the power to establish and enforce discriminatory cultural norms and legal institutions, and the power to make and implement public policy. The more power an individual has, the more resilient she should be to climate change. Yet, in the vast majority of societies, the social construction of gender leaves women at a considerable disadvantage. For evidence, one need not look any further than the fact that women retain only one-quarter of all parliamentary seats in national governments around the world and only one-fifth of ministerial positions; or that women’s average annual income is only 53% of that of men; or that women log an estimated 12 billion hours of unpaid care work each year, which are not economically ‘valued’ and rarely, if ever, reflected in economic policy making (WEF, 2019). Among those for whom climate change poses the greatest threat are rural and Indigenous women, a circumstance which reflects the intersectional nature of societal power differentials, and by extension vulnerability to climate change, as well as the climate sensitivity of agriculture, the predominant rural livelihood for women in developing states. However, while the double injustice persists, acknowledging and acting upon the gendered nature of climate change also illuminates pathways to more sustainable, effective, and just means of bolstering societal resilience and encouraging adaptation.

This book employs gender as a lens to examine the complex linkages between climate change and livelihoods in some of the world’s most vulnerable states and regions. The chapters address how climate change affects women and men in distinct ways, and what implications these effects hold for earning income and for accessing the natural, cultural, social, economic, legal, and political resources required to survive and thrive in society. The authors in this volume draw on case research from countries and regions spanning five continents to reflect on how public policies and power dynamics shape gendered climate change vulnerabilities, how gender influences coping and adaptation, and how civil society organizations and other activists incorporate gender into their climate advocacy strategies. The book adopts a livelihoods focus because livelihoods – ‘the opportunity set of capabilities, assets, and activities that are required to make a living’ (Olsson et al., 2014, p. 728) – are highly gendered, because they are central to ensuring subsistence and development, and because livelihoods, especially those such as agriculture which rely on sensitive natural resources, are under threat from a combination of climate change and population pressures. A livelihoods focus also provides an opportunity to unite and learn from multiple distinct scholarly perspectives and research traditions; it ‘provides an institutional bridging function linking people, professions, and practices’ in order to facilitate the adoption of a gender-based perspective on climate mitigation and adaptation (Scoones, 2009, p. 172).

Towards Increased Policy Engagement of Gender and Climate Change

It has been nearly 30 years since the United Nations adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992). Although the treaty was a major achievement at the time, the role of gender was not considered; the word does not appear in the text even once. The same is true for ‘sex,’ ‘women,’ ‘woman,’ ‘female,’ or any other word that recognizes, much less emphasizes, gender as a concept relevant to climate change. The exclusion is not surprising; the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the first legally binding accord to emerge under the Framework Convention, is similarly silent (UN, 1997). It is not until the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) in 2015, that ‘gender’ appears in a global climate change treaty. The PCA acknowledges in the Preamble that Parties should ‘when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations… [to] gender equality [and the] empowerment of women;’ and calls for Parties to be ‘gender responsive’ when considering adaptation (Article 7) and capacity building (Article 11) measures (UN, 2015, p. 2 and p. 9). Though these references are significant, the treaty falls short in ignoring the role of gender in relation to climate mitigation (Articles 4, 5, and 6), finance (Article 9), and technology (Article 10). Without clear guidance on the importance of gender to all aspects of climate policy, there is a risk that member states will ignore it.

Fortunately, scholars and practitioners have helped to clarify the complex linkages between the environment and development, a process that has increased awareness of how the effects of climate change manifest among different social groups, including women (Brody et al., 2008; Buechler, 2009; Angula, 2010; Dillon and Gill, 2014). Recent years have witnessed greater recognition of the gendered impacts of climate change, and there has been increased concern in policy circles about how to address gender in climate adaptation and mitigation initiatives. This focus is critical; women comprise the majority of the world’s poor and are generally more vulnerable to climate change than men (IUCN, 2007; Quan and Dyer, 2008). Women are also vulnerable in different ways. For example, women face greater risk from climate disasters, not only because they are poorer, but also because they are over-represented in climate-sensitive labor sectors, because social customs such as dress codes and greater familial and household burdens can threaten personal safety during escape, and because post-disaster breakdowns in social order and gender discrimination in disaster relief provision can hamper women’s recovery capabilities (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007). If policy makers fail to take these considerations into account, then measures aimed at reducing climate vulnerability or enhancing adaptation capacity will fall short.

Despite the PCA’s limitations, efforts to place gender and gender-based analysis at the forefront has compelled the UNFCCC to take action. In 2017, member states adopted the first ever comprehensive Gender Action Plan (UN, 2017), and in 2019 the Secretariat produced a synthesis report on gender-differentiated climate change impacts and the integration of gender into national climate policies (UN, 2019). The report stresses the role of climate-sensitive livelihoods, especially agricultural livelihoods, to local and Indigenous communities, as well as the effects of climate change on biomass collection and food production. The livelihoods focus is welcome, as it opens the door to addressing gendered livelihood vulnerabilities and can encourage adaptations that facilitate livelihood diversification and enhance climate resilience. Developing states stand to gain the most from a gendered livelihood focus; they rely more heavily on industries vulnerable to climate disruption and possess fewer resources to invest in adaptation and mitigation efforts (IPCC, 2014). Moreover, increased awareness of how climate change will affect the livelihoods of different groups of people (such as women) is essential to designing and implementing effective policy interventions.

Institutions such as the United Nations that have embraced the role of gender in climate change initiatives have met with some success. In Lesotho, for example, the UN-funded project, ‘Women as Agents of Change for Adaptation,’ has retained a group of women volunteers to act as ‘solar ambassadors’ in their villages to help encourage the adoption of solar technologies in order to meet domestic energy requirements and reduce the need to collect scarce vegetation for cooking and heat (UN-Lesotho, undated). In the Mauritian village of Grand Sable, another UN-backed project has sought to reduce climate vulnerability and facilitate livelihood diversification by offering training on the development of mangrove plantations and the cultivation of vetiver, seaweed, and medicinal plants (UN-Mauritius, undated). Project outcomes have enhanced livelihood opportunities for all residents, especially women, through handicraft and herb sales and through increased biological productivity in coastal waters. The plants under cultivation have also offered the village, which is situated between the mountains and the sea, increased protection from hillside (vetiver) and coastal (mangrove) erosion and storm surges, which has helped reduce waterlogging and soil depletion in the fields. In both of these projects, a core component of success has been the recognition that ‘… women are most likely to suffer from climate change but they are also the most capable of creating change and adaptation within their communities’ (UN-Mauritius, undated). While we view these efforts as positive, and the recognition of gender as a step in the right direction, much work remains to be done.

Gender, Livelihoods and Climate Change in Developing Countries

A substantial portion of the global population depends on agriculture and agricultural resources for their livelihoods. This dependence applies not only to the more than 1 billion people who are formally employed in agricultural sectors, but also to individuals who buy and sell crops, farm for subsistence, and who rely on the gathering of biomass to generate energy (World Bank, 2020a). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that at least 2.5 billion people worldwide draw their livelihoods from agricultural pursuits (FAO, 2012). Climate change poses significant threats to the quantity and quality of resources necessary to maintain these livelihoods, as increasing climate variability alters the predictability of regional weather patterns, exacerbates drought, and elevates the threat of storms, floods, and fires. The world’s poor face the greatest risk. Developing countries, which host 96% of the world’s estimated 570 million farms, rely disproportionately on agriculture for population subsistence and economic production, and are also among the least capable of adapting to climate change through livelihood diversification (Lowder et al., 2016). Absent effective mitigation or adaptation measures, the impacts of climate change on these states will only reinforce vicious cycles of increasing economic and social inequalities, decreasing recovery capabilities, and greater levels of vulnerability.

As we discuss throughout the book, the burdens climate change places on agriculture and agricultural livelihoods are not borne equally, even among the world’s poor. Group-level variations in social and economic status place some at greater disadvantage than others. Gender is an important determinant of these power differentials, and intersects with other identity markers such as age, ethnicity, race, and class in ways that magnify disempowerment. On average, women enjoy less favorable access to credit, land tenure rights, agricultural technologies and inputs, and other assets critical for livelihoods than do their male counterparts (Behrman et al., 2014; Huyer, 2016). Climate change threatens to deepen these gender-based inequalities, especially when it makes natural resources scarcer and more difficult to secure.

The gendered impacts of climate change on livelihoods

Gender, livelihoods, and climate change intersect in multiple and complex ways. A comprehensive review of the literature has identified six areas in which the consequences of climate change – increased rainfall, rising sea levels, flooding, drought, and elevated temperatures – affect women and men differently: agricultural production; food security; health; water and energy resource access; climate-induced migration; and climate-related natural disasters (Goh, 2012). However, the reasons for the disparities often have little to do with gendered variations in biology or capabilities; rather, they tend to reflect ‘the persistence of discriminatory laws and social norms that restrict women’s rights and opportunities’ (Eastin, 2018, p. 290). For example, within the home, common gender inequities in household and familial obligations diminish opportunities for women to participate in the formal labor force, which can increase food insecurity, damage health, reduce social networks, and undermine attempts at livelihood diversification and other adaptation measures. Outside the home, gendered labor force discrimination can reinforce these dynamics, further threatening female health and resource access and increasing disaster vulnerability.

An individual’s livelihood is a function of her access to assets, including natural, physical, financial, social, and political. This access informs the nature and content of a person’s productive pursuits, as well as her ability to adapt to societal, economic, and environmental changes (Olsson et al., 2014). Livelihoods, especially those that are vulnerable to climate change, are often gendered because ownership and control over the natural resources required to maintain them are gendered (Nelson and Stathers, 2009). Social and political institutions – such as formal laws and cultural norms – dictate the rules of resource access in ways that privilege some and disempower others. Gendered land tenure and inheritance laws, for example, reduce women’s access to credit markets, which in turn decreases the availability of agricultural resources, inputs, and technologies necessary to maintain or enhance productivity (Deere and Leon, 2003; Nuryartono, 2005; Scalise, 2009). The overall effect is that women and women’s livelihoods are not only more vulnerable to climate change, women also have a decreased capacity to cope with and adapt to changes when they occur. Moreover, because these institutions are often context specific, the gender-differentiated effects of climate change on livelihoods will vary as well. In some places, women will be affected more in certain ways than in others.

A focus on livelihoods provides a conceptual link that enables us to better examine the complex impacts of climate change on both development and gender relations. For instance, agricultural work affects food security by providing subsistence and income. Water and energy access are household assets that directly influence food security, but they are also productive assets in that they are required to maintain agricultural livelihoods. Food security shapes health, and health affects an individual’s ability to engage in agricultural production. When climate pressures encourage male outmigration for labor, there can be a shift in the gendered dynamics of a household’s livelihoods, if, for example, women must secure new livelihoods or take on additional livelihood burdens to cope (Alston, 2015). Natural disasters such as droughts and floods affect what livelihoods women and men can engage in via their impact on resource quantity and quality, access to which also faces gendered constraints (Schwoebel and Menon, 2004). Cultural barriers to mobility and labor force participation shape gendered livelihood strategies as well, in addition to their impact and effectiveness.

Agriculture is the primary livelihood for a large number of women in developing countries. FAO statistics indicate that 63% of women in the least developed countries are agricultural workers, including 52% of women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and 56% in South Asia, though there is considerable intra-regional variation, especially among the countries of SSA. In Angola, for example, 56% of women are employed in agriculture; in Uganda, the figure is 77%; and in Mozambique, 80%. In Burundi, 96% of women work in the agricultural sector (World Bank, 2020b).

Agriculture is also among the most sensitive sectors to climate change, especially in Africa, a region which contains the largest share of the world’s poor, is the least infrastructurally developed, the most reliant on rainfall irrigation, and possesses the lowest access to agricultural inputs such as seeds and fertilizer. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that if average global temperatures increase by 2°C, the target threshold of the PCA, the results for many African countries will be catastrophic (Niang et al., 2014). At 2°C, southern Africa is expected to lose 20% of its current annual precipitation, which will lead to longer and more powerful droughts and dry spells, and a partial draining of the Zambezi Basin, the home of 32 million people, 80% of whom rely on the water for consumption and irrigation. When the rains do come, the parched earth will be less absorbent and the storms more intense, which will increase the risk of erosion and floods. All regions of the continent will see increases in temperatures, some quite significant, which will generate additional pressure on beleaguered water supplies and crops through evaporation and evapotranspiration. The Sahel region faces substantial threat through a combination of rising populations, declining resource availability and access, and anticipated temperature increases expected to equal 150% of the global average. These factors generate considerable challenges for food security, and are abetted by armed conflict, communal violence, and other forms of civil and political strife that pervade the region. The result has been – and will likely continue to be – unrelenting cycles of hunger, famine, and humanitarian emergency. These projections only reflect 2°C warming. Accounting for current GHG emission rates in 2020, as well as the nationally determined contributions (NDC) already submitted under the PCA, somewhere north of 3°C looks to be more likely (UNEP, 2019).

Given these projections, as well as the significant role women play in agriculture, their greater vulnerability to the effects of climate change, and challenges women face with livelihood diversification, incorporating gender responsiveness into climate change initiatives and addressing gender disparities in agricultural livelihoods are pressing concerns. Doing so can facilitate more just and equitable approaches to addressing climate change, as well as enhancing their effectiveness. The benefits of such a gender-based approach will emerge in the form of greater societal resilience, reduced vulnerability, and improved economic, social, and political conditions for some of the world’s most at-risk populations.

Contributions in This Book

This book applies a gender lens to examine the implications of climate change for livelihoods in vulnerable states. The goals are to enhance awareness of climate change as a gender issue, and to highlight the importance of gender in identifying livelihood vulnerabilities and in designing more robust climate adaptation measures, especially in climate-sensitive industries such as agriculture. The contributions in this book examine how the consequences of climate change affect women and men in different ways, and address the implications of climate change for women’s livelihoods and resource access. The book’s topical coverage is not limited to a single region or time period, though it devotes greater attention to cases such as Bangladesh, which reflect high levels of climate vulnerability, low adaptation capacity, and which are characterized by restrictive gender norms and laws that preserve gender-based livelihood disparities. While one might argue that a country like Bangladesh is atypical in terms of its vulnerability to climate change, it is precisely cases such as this that provide opportunity to elucidate key causal dynamics. Moreover, given that climate change remains an ongoing process, we might expect contemporary Bangladesh to be a precursor to the type of environmental conditions many more states can expect in coming years.

The book is organized into two sections. The first, Gendered Livelihood Vulnerabilities to Climate Change (Chapters 2–8) examines disparities in the vulnerability of women’s and men’s livelihoods to climate change. The chapters in this section address issues such as gender inequalities in the household distribution of labor; differential access to agricultural livelihood inputs and assets; gender-based threats to personal safety and security; and gendered vulnerability to and experiences with climate disasters, food insecurity, and infrastructure development.

In Chapter 2, Salim Momtaz et al. employ the sustainable livelihoods framework and disaster crunch model to investigate gender disparities in livelihoods, livelihood vulnerabilities, and coping capacity in coastal areas of Bangladesh. Their analysis demonstrates how exposure to climate disasters influences the gender distribution of livelihood capital in the region, shapes women’s efforts at climate adaptation, and threatens their health and well-being. The study also highlights the ways in which women overcome inflexible gender relationships to develop coping mechanisms for the socio-economic and ecological effects of climate change, and recommends a series of policy measures aimed at reducing women’s vulnerability.

Nahid Rezwana, also writing on Bangladesh, adds to our understanding by exploring the gendered effects of climate disasters on women’s experiences within the household in Chapter 3, especially regarding exposure to gender-based violence. Drawing on a wealth of firsthand interviews with rural women, Rezwana illustrates how women cope with disasters, how they survive, and how they support their families during and after the crisis periods. She also identifies the various ways these processes shape and reinforce women’s pre-existing vulnerabilities to climate change. Her recommendations include the adoption of gender-sensitive disaster management plans and the incorporation of local knowledge to combat future disasters more successfully.

Francis Mwesigye’s study in Chapter 4 emphasizes important connections between gender inequality, women’s role in agriculture, and threats to food security in Uganda. He finds weather shocks – droughts, floods, and irregular rainfall – to be the greatest cause of food insecurity among his survey respondents and for female-headed households to suffer disproportionately higher levels of food insecurity and for longer periods of time than those headed by men. His work indicates the need for policies aimed at enhancing gendered social safety net programs as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing climate vulnerability.

Elizabeth Onyango’s contribution in Chapter 5 takes the reader to Kenya to examine how the combination of climate change and a history of unjust land tenure arrangements have exacerbated gender inequalities, fostered displacement and dispossession, and diminished women’s livelihood options in the country. She pays particular attention to how these issues affect the lives, livelihoods, and health and well-being of senior women, who often act as caregivers to children and grandchildren. Her analysis offers a unique perspective on the potential for climate change to influence women’s lives and livelihoods beyond traditional accounts of economic and agricultural productivity.

Yvonne Braun’s chapter (Chapter 6) evaluates the gendered impacts of infrastructure development – large-scale dam projects – in Lesotho. She takes a narrative approach, drawing on ethnographic research, to document how the push for water resource commodification in the face of changing climatic conditions in the southern African region created unintended consequences for the lives and livelihoods of residents in proximate rural communities in Lesotho, including: a diminution of food security and water access; increases in women’s household responsibilities; heightened anxieties and fears about the future; and the loss of connections and relationships between communities distanced by the newly created lakes. Her research also emphasizes the need for incorporating local voices, knowledge, and perspectives as a means of mitigating these consequences, an approach that was not taken prior to the development of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

In Chapter 7 Elisabeth Garner draws on her research in western Honduras to enhance our awareness of the links between a woman’s familial responsibilities and her productive pursuits. Garner argues that the divides between these spheres are not always meaningful, and that women’s role in subsistence agriculture is better understood as ‘care work’ because of the vital role these efforts play in providing household and community food security. Viewing subsistence agriculture in this way, she argues, is necessary to appreciate why women are more likely to participate in subsistence agriculture than in farming crops of greater economic value, the socio-economic and gendered systems that influence this participation, and to establish a more robust conceptual framework for analyzing women’s vulnerability to climate change.

Finally, Joshua Eastin’s chapter (Chapter 8) in this section examines the impact of climate change on domestic violence in Indonesia. Through statistical analysis, he demonstrates that high levels of climate variability in December, the core month of the rice-planting season, lead to increases in the incidence of domestic and intimate partner violence the following year. Disruptions to livelihoods, especially agricultural livelihoods, caused by erratic weather patterns exacerbate economic hardship and undermine subsistence, the result of which aggravates psychological pressures commonly associated with domestic violence. At the same time, the economic impact of climate variability on women’s lives and livelihoods reduces their ability to flee abusive situations, especially in the context of discriminatory gender norms and laws that emphasize male authority and control.

The second section of the book, Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change on livelihoods, takes a gender-based view of various climate adaptation initiatives in areas that rely on agriculture for subsistence and production. The contributions in this section address gender-inclusive participation in climate policy planning and decision making, the role of gender in livelihood adaptation measures, and any successes, failures, or opportunities for improvement that emerge from these efforts.

Two chapters in this section evaluate ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) as a means of alleviating the impact of climate change on women’s livelihoods. In Chapter 9, Agnes Babugura provides a conceptual overview of CSA, and discusses its implementation in various African states. Drawing lessons from examples of effective CSA practices across the continent, Babugura echoes others in the field when she argues for the necessity of incorporating gender in the planning and execution of CSA initiatives. Elizabeth Bryan et al. build on these insights in Chapter 10 to examine gender disparities in the awareness and adoption of CSA practices among residents of rural villages in Bangladesh. Through survey analysis, these authors find that access to information on CSA is low for everyone, but more so for women than men. They also find that when made aware of CSA practices, women are equally, if not more likely to adopt them, and that women are more receptive to adopting CSA practices that correspond to gendered household responsibilities. Among other things, these findings highlight the need for more robust efforts to increase information dissemination, especially to women, in order to expand its use in communities vulnerable to adverse climate change impacts.

In Chapter 11, Dina Najjar and Bipasha Baruah discuss women’s participation in another agricultural livelihood strategy: livestock and rangelands management. Their analysis centers on two regions in southern and central Tunisia, where surveys and focus groups reveal individuals’ perceptions of rangeland degradation, the gendered impacts of such degradation on pastoral livelihoods, and the adaptation strategies that both men and women adopt to respond to changing environmental conditions. Najjar and Baruah find that while women in these areas are much more involved in rangeland grazing than has been previously understood, the success of their participation is contingent on building awareness of their role, the integration of gender concerns in drought mitigation and other livelihood-related projects, and on the inclusion of women in rangeland-related decision making.

The next three chapters each touch on one of the most prevalent livelihood adaptations to climate change – migration. Diana Hummel provides an expansive analysis of the gendered aspects of climate migration in Chapter 12. She draws from scientific literature on climate change and migration, various conceptual frameworks for integrating gender, and on empirical research on the West African Sahel to demonstrate the complex, multi-causal, and context-dependent relationship between these phenomena. In Chapter 13, Margaret Alston adds to our understanding of gender, climate change, and migration nexus through her discussion of the effects of climate disasters on women in rural agricultural communities. Alston draws on original research from Lao PDR, Bangladesh, and Australia to reveal how livelihood adaptations such as migration reconfigure some aspects of gender relations, while reinforcing others. She finds that while male outmigration compels an increase in women’s participation in agricultural labor and food procurement, limitations on women’s access to necessary agricultural inputs, training, and technologies remain. However, these cases also reveal that increases in women’s contributions to agricultural production have facilitated a relaxation of discriminatory cultural institutions and restrictions on women’s involvement in public affairs. In Chapter 14, Dina Najjar and her co-authors draw from an original survey of landless laborers in Morocco, to examine labor migration and the determinants of female migrants’ control over decision making in issues related to employment, income expenditures, and assets. Their findings indicate that women are actively engaging in wage-labor migration as a mechanism for livelihood diversification in response to drought, a result which counters the stereotype of women as ‘left behind’ when husbands migrate for work. However, these authors also find traditional decision making patterns over income and assets to exert sway over migrant communities, suggesting a need for active interventions to overcome discriminatory social norms and institutions.

The final two contributions address the development of climate change adaptation initiatives and policy from both bottom-up and top-down perspectives. In Chapter 15, Ellie Perkins and Balikisu Osman address the role of grassroots community-based organizations, women’s groups, and activists in confronting the gendered effects of climate change. These authors pay careful attention to the role of livelihood provisioning and care in these movements’ initiatives, as well as their efforts at organizing to enhance women’s climate resilience. Overall, this chapter provides a strong case for increasing the availability and sharing of data on women’s labor and of encouraging women’s participation in climate governance as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of climate policy. Finally, Shahreen Shehwar examines in Chapter 16 the role of gender and gender mainstreaming in the formation of climate policy in Bangladesh and Nepal. She addresses the effects of climate change for rural women in these countries, appraises policies aimed at reducing women’s vulnerability, and reflects on the attention to gender concerns in national adaptation initiatives. Overall, she argues that Bangladesh and Nepal have much to learn from one another in developing policy to meet gender-specific threats to women, especially rural women.

We conclude with a chapter (Chapter 17) that connects the book’s various ideas, arguments, and findings; discusses the book’s themes in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which is ongoing as of this writing; and provides some directions and ideas for future research.

References

Alston, M. (2015) Women and Climate Change in Bangladesh. Routledge Women in Asia series. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Angula, M. (2010) Gender and climate change: Namibia case study. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Southern Africa, Cape Town. Available at: www.boell.de/en/navigation/climate-energy-Namibia-9078.html (accessed 1 February 2021).

Behrman, J.A., Bryan, E. and Goh, A. (2014) Gender, climate change, and group-based approaches to adaptation. International Food Policy Research Institute, Policy Note: 3–6. Available at: www.ifpri.org/publication/gender-climate-change-and-group-based-approaches-adaptation (accessed 1 February 2021).

Brody, A., Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E. (2008) Gender and climate change: mapping the linkages – a scoping study on knowledge and gaps. BRIDGE Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK. Available at: www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/sites/bridge.ids.ac.uk/files/reports/Climate_Change_DFID.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Buechler, S. (2009) Gender, water, and climate change in Sonora, Mexico: implications for policies and programmes on agricultural income-generation. Gender and Development 17, 51–66.

Deere, C.D. and Leon, M. (2003) The gender asset gap: land in Latin America. World Development 31, 925–947.

Dillon, A. and Gill, J. (2014) The gender-differentiated impact of climate variability on production possibilities: evidence from cereal production in Mali. In: Ringler, C., Quisumbing, A.R., Bryan, E. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (eds) Enhancing Women’s Assets to Manage Risk Under Climate Change: Potential for Group-Based Approaches. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 33–35.

Eastin, J. (2018) Climate change and gender equality in developing states. World Development 107, 289–305.

FAO (2012) FAO statistical yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/3/i3107e/i3107e01.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Goh, A. (2012) A literature review of the gender-differentiated impacts of climate change on women’s and men’s assets and well-being in developing countries. CAPRR Working Paper No.106. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Available at: www.ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/127247 (accessed 1 February 2021).

Huyer, S. (2016) Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender, Technology and Development 20, 105–116.

IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IUCN (2007) Gender and Climate Change. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/climate_change_gender.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. and Raney, T. (2016) The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Development, 87, 16–29.

Nelson, V. and Stathers, T. (2009) Resilience, power, culture, and climate: a case study from semi-arid Tanzania, and new research directions. Gender and Development 17, 81–94.

Neumayer, E. and Plümper, T. (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97, 551–566.

Niang, I., Ruppel, O.C., Abdrabo, M.A., Essel, A., Lennard, C., Padgham, J. and Urquhart, P. (2014) Africa. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, pp. 1199–1265.

Nuryartono, N. (2005) Impact of smallholders’ access to land and credit markets on technology adoption and land use decisions: the case of tropical forest margins in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.

Okereke, C. (2010) Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 462–474.

Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A., Eriksen, S.H. et al. (2014) Livelihoods and poverty. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, pp. 793–832.

Otzelberger, A. (2014) Tackling the double injustice of climate change and gender inequality. CARE International. Available at: www.carefrance.org/ressources/themas/1/4442,CARE_COP20_Tackling-double-injustic.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Quan, J. and Dyer, N. (2008) Climate change and land tenure: the implications of climate change for land tenure and land policy. IIED/FAO Land Tenure Working Paper No 2. London and Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-aj332e.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Scalise, E. (2009) Women’s inheritance rights to land and property in South Asia: a study of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Report by the Rural Development Institute for the World Justice Project. Available at: www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/WJF-Womens-Inheritance-Six-South-Asian-Countries.FINAL_12-15-09.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Schwoebel, M.H. and Menon, G. (2004) Mainstreaming gender in disaster management support projects. Center for Development and Population Activities, Washington, DC. Available at: www.gdnonline.org/resources/DMS%20Report_WID%20India_6%2007%2004.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

Scoones, I. (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36, 171–196.

UN (1997) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York. Available at: www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

UN (2015) Paris Agreement. United Nations, Paris. Available at: www.unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

UN (2017) Gender Action Plan, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, Bonn, Germany. Available at: www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/2017/sbi/eng/l29.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

UN (2019) Differentiated impacts of climate change on women and men; the integration of gender considerations in climate policies, plans and actions; and progress in enhancing gender balance in national climate delegations. Synthesis report. United Nations, New York. Available at: www.unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sbi2019_inf8.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

UN-Lesotho (undated) Women as agents of change for adaptation – Lesotho. United Nations, New York. Available at: www.unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/activity-database/women-as-agents-of-change-for-adaptation (accessed 1 February 2021).

UN-Mauritius (undated) Enhancing the livelihood of women at grand sable in response to climate change impacts – Mauritius. United Nations, New York. Available at: www.unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/activity-database/enhancing-the-livelihood-of-women-at-grand-sable-in-response-to-climate-change-impacts (accessed 1 February 2021).

UNEP (2019) Emissions Gap Report. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019 (accessed 1 February 2021).

UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York. Available at: www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (accessed 1 February 2021).

WEF (2019) Global Gender Gap Report 2020. World Economic Forum. Available at: www.weforum.org/reports/gender-gap-2020-report-100-years-pay-equality (accessed 1 February 2021).

WHO (2020) Gender and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 (accessed 1 February 2021).

Wiebe, K., Robinson, S. and Cattaneo, A. (2019) Chapter 4 – climate change, agriculture and food security: impacts and the potential for adaptation and mitigation. In: Campanhola, C. and Pandey, S. (eds) Sustainable Food and Agriculture. Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, pp. 55–74.

World Bank (2020a) Employment in agriculture (% of total employment). World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at: www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?end=2018andmost_recent_year_desc=trueandstart=1991andtype=shadedandview=chart (accessed 1 February 2021).

World Bank (2020b) Employment in agriculture, female (% of female employment). World Bank, Washington, DC. Available at: www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.FE.ZS?name_desc=false (accessed