Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

== CCB11 Gender in inclusive approaches to climate change, land and sustainable development ==

<div id="section-7-4-9-5-overcoming-barriers-block-1"></div>

Margot Hurlbert (Canada), Brigitte Baptiste (Colombia), Amber Fletcher (Canada), Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre (Spain), Darshini Mahadevia (India), Katharine Vincent (United Kingdom)

Gender is a key axis of social inequality that intersects with other systems of power and marginalisation – including race, culture, class/socio-economic status, location, sexuality, and age – to cause unequal experiences of climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity. However, ‘policy frameworks and strong institutions that align development, equity objectives, and climate have the potential to deliver “triple-wins”’ (Roy et al. 2018), including enhanced gender equality. Gender in relation to this report is introduced in Chapter 1, referred to as a leverage point in women’s participation in decisions relating to land desertification (Section 3.6.3), land degradation (Section 4.1.6), food security (Section 5.2.5.1), and enabling land and climate response options (Section 6.1.2.2).

Focusing on ‘gender’ as a relational and contextual construct can help avoid homogenising women as a uniformly and consistently vulnerable category (Arora-Jonsson 2011; Mersha and Van Laerhoven 2016; Ravera et al. 2016). There is high agreement that using a framework of intersectionality to integrate gender into climate change research helps to recognise overlapping and interconnected systems of power (Djoudi et al. 2016; Fletcher 2018; Kaijser and Kronsell 2014; Moosa and Tuana 2014; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016), which create particular inequitable experiences of climate change vulnerability and adaptation. Through this framework, both commonalities and differences may be found between the experiences of rural and urban women, or between women in high-income and low-income countries, for example.

In rural areas, women generally experience greater vulnerability than men, albeit through different pathways (Djoudi et al., 2016; Goh, 2012; Jost et al., 2016; Kakota, Nyariki, Mkwambisi, &amp; Kogi-Makau, 2011). In masculinised agricultural settings of Australia and Canada, for example, climate adaptation can increase women’s work on- and off-farm, but without increasing recognition for women’s undervalued contributions (Alston et al. 2018a; Fletcher and Knuttila 2016). A study in rural Ethiopia found that male-headed households had access to a wider set of adaptation measures than female-headed households (Mersha and Van Laerhoven 2016).

Due to engrained patriarchal social structures and gendered ideologies, women may face multiple barriers to participation and decision-making in land-based adaptation and mitigation actions in response to climate change (high confidence) (Alkire et al. 2013a; Quisumbing et al. 2014). These barriers include: (i) disproportionate responsibility for unpaid domestic work, including care-giving activities (Beuchelt and Badstue 2013) and provision of water and firewood (UNEP, 2016); (ii) risk of violence in both public and private spheres, which restricts women’s mobility for capacity-building activities and productive work outside the home (Day et al., 2005; Jost et al., 2016; UNEP, 2016); (iii) less access to credit and financing (Jost et al. 2016); (iv) lack of organisational social capital, which may help in accessing credit (Carroll et al. 2012); (v) lack of ownership of productive assets and resources (Kristjanson et al., 2014; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010), including land. Constraints to land access include not only state policies, but also customary laws (Bayisenge 2018) based on customary norms and religion that determine women’s rights (Namubiru-Mwaura 2014a).

Differential vulnerability to climate change is related to inequality in rights-based resource access, established through formal and informal tenure systems. In only 37% of 161 developing and developed countries do men and women have equal rights to use and control land, and in 59% customary, traditional, and religious practices discriminate against women (OECD 2014), even if the law formally grants equal rights. Women play a significant role in agriculture, food security and rural economies globally, forming 43% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, &amp; WHO, 2018, p. 102), ranging from 25% in Latin America (FAO, 2017, p. 89) to nearly 50% in Eastern Asia and Central and South Europe (FAO, 2017, p. 88) and 47% in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2017, pp. 88). Further, the share of women in agricultural employment has been growing in all developing regions except East Asia and Southeast Asia (FAO, 2017, p. 88). At the same time, women constitute less than 5% of landholders (with legal rights and/or use- rights (Doss et al. 2018a) in North Africa and West Asia, about 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa, 12% in Southern and Southeastern Asia, 18% in Latin America and Caribbean (FAO 2011b, p. 25), 10% in Bangladesh, 4% in Nigeria (FAO 2015c). Patriarchal structures and gender roles can also affect women’s control over land in developed countries (Carter 2017; Alston et al. 2018b). Thus, longstanding gender inequality in land rights, security of tenure, and decision-making may constrict women’s adaptation options (Smucker and Wangui 2016).

Adaptation options related to land and climate (see Chapter 6) may produce environment and development trade-offs as well as social conflicts (Hunsberger et al. 2017) and changes with gendered implications. Women’s strong presence in agriculture provides an opportunity to bring gender dimensions into climate change adaptation, particularly regarding food security (Glemarec 2017; Jost et al. 2016; Doss et al. 2018b). Some studies point to a potentially emancipatory role played by adaptation interventions and strategies, albeit with some limitations depending on context. For example, in developing contexts, male out-migration may cause women in socially disadvantaged groups to engage in new livelihood activities, thus challenging gendered roles (Djoudi and Brockhaus 2011; Alston 2006). Collective action and agency of women in farming households, including widows, have led to prevention of crop failure, reduced workload, increased nutritional intake, increased sustainable water management, diversified and increased income and improved strategic planning (Andersson and Gabrielsson 2012). Women’s waged labour can help stabilise income from more land- and climate-dependent activities such as agriculture, hunting, or fishing (Alston et al., 2018; Ford and Goldhar, 2012). However, in developed contexts like Australia, women’s participation in off-farm employment may exacerbate existing masculinisation of agriculture (Clarke and Alston 2017).

Literature suggests that land-based mitigation measures may lead to land alienation, either through market or appropriation (acquisition) by the government, may interfere with traditional livelihoods in rural areas, and lead to decline in women’s livelihoods (Hunsberger et al. 2017). If land alienation is not prevented, existing inequities and social exclusions may be reinforced (medium agreement) (Mustalahti and Rakotonarivo 2014; Chomba et al. 2016; Poudyal et al. 2016). These activities also can lead to land grabs, which remain a focal point for research and local activism (Borras Jr. et al. 2011; White et al. 2012; Lahiff 2015). Cumulative effects of land-based mitigation measures may put families at risk of poverty. In certain contexts, they lead to increased conflicts. In conflict situations, women are at risk of personal violence, including sexual violence (UNEP, 2016).

Policy instruments for gender-inclusive approaches to climate change, land and sustainable development

Integrating, or mainstreaming, gender into land and climate change policy requires assessments of gender-differentiated needs and priorities, selection of appropriate policy instruments to address barriers to women’s sustainable land management (SLM), and selection of gender indicators for monitoring and assessment of policy (medium confidence) (Huyer et al. 2015a; Alston 2014). Important sex-disaggregated data can be obtained at multiple levels, including the intra-household level (Seager 2014; Doss et al. 2018b), village- and plot-level information (Theriault et al. 2017a), and through national surveys (Agarwal 2018a; Doss et al. 2015a). Gender-disaggregated data provides a basis for selecting, monitoring and reassessing policy instruments that account for gender- differentiated land and climate change needs (medium confidence) (Rao 2017a; Arora-Jonsson 2014; Theriault et al. 2017b; Doss et al. 2018b). While macro-level data can reveal ongoing gender trends in SLM, contextual data are important for revealing intersectional aspects, such as the difference made by family relations, socio-economic status, or cultural practices about land use and control (Rao 2017a; Arora-Jonsson 2014; Theriault et al. 2017b), as well as on security of land holding (Doss et al. 2018b). Indices such as the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (Alkire et al. 2013b) may provide useful guidelines for quantitative data collection on gender and SLM, while qualitative studies can reveal the nature of agency and whether policies are likely to be accepted, or not, in the context of local structures, meanings, and social relations (Rao 2017b).

Women’s economic empowerment, decision-making power and voice is a necessity in SLM decisions (Mello and Schmink 2017a; Theriault et al. 2017b). Policies that address barriers include: gender considerations as qualifying criteria for funding programmes or access to financing for initiatives; government transfers to women under the auspices of anti-poverty programmes; spending on health and education; and subsidised credit for women (medium confidence) (Jagger and Pender 2006; Van Koppen et al. 2013a; Theriault et al. 2017b; Agarwal 2018b). Training and extension for women to facilitate sustainable practices is also important (Mello and Schmink 2017b; Theriault et al. 2017b). Such training could be built into existing programmes or structures, such as collective microenterprise (Mello and Schmink 2017b). Huyer et al. (2015) suggest that information provision (e.g., information about SLM) could be effectively dispersed through women’s community-based organisations, although not in such a way that it overwhelms these organisations or supersedes their existing missions. SLM programmes could also benefit from intentionally engaging men in gender-equality training and efforts (Fletcher 2017), thus recognising the relationality of gender. Recognition of the household level, including men’s roles and power relations, can help avoid the decontextualised and individualistic portrayal of women as purely instrumental actors (Rao 2017b).

Technology, policy, and programmes that exacerbate women’s workloads or reinforce gender stereotypes (MacGregor 2010; Huyer et al. 2015b), or which fail to recognise and value the contributions women already make (Doss et al. 2018b), may further marginalise women. Accordingly, some studies have described technological and labour interventions that can enhance sustainability while also decreasing women’s workloads; for example, Vent et al. (2017) described the system of rice intensification as one such intervention. REDD+ initiatives need to be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve complementary synergies with gender dimensions.

Secure land title and/or land access and control for women increases SLM by increasing women’s conservation efforts, increasing their productive and environmentally beneficial agricultural investments, such as willingness to engage in tree planting and sustainable soil management (high confidence) as well as improving cash incomes (Higgins et al. 2018; Agarwal 2010; Namubiru- Mwaura 2014b; Doss et al. 2015b; Van Koppen et al. 2013b; Theriault et al. 2017b; Jagger and Pender 2006). According FAO (2011b, p. 5), if women had the same access to productive resources as men, the number of hungry people in the world could be reduced by 12–17%. Policies promoting secure land title include legal reforms at multiple levels, including national laws on land ownership, legal education, and legal aid for women on land ownership and access (Argawal 2018). Policies to increase women’s access to land could occur through three main avenues of land acquisition: inheritance/family (Theriault et al. 2017b), state policy, and the market (Agarwal 2018). Rao (2017) recommends framing land rights as entitlements rather than as instrumental means to sustainability. This reframing may address persistent, pervasive gender inequalities (FAO 2015d).

<span id="decision-making-for-climate-change-and-land"></span>