GENDER, AGRICULTURE
& CLIMATE CHANGE:
WHAT WE NEED TO
KNOW
Carmen Diana Deere
University of Florida
Presentation at CIAT/CCAFS, Cali, September 3, 2012

Basic Propositions
1. Men & women may have different exposure
and vulnerability to climate change
2. Have different capabilities to deal with climate
change, hence, different needs and
perspectives
3. Different factors may affect men‟s and women‟s
levels of participation in adaptation and
mitigation strategies
4. Alternative policy instruments/interventions can
have different gender impacts

Strategic Gender Research
Key Question: How does climate change and/or climate change
interventions impact women‟s empowerment in agriculture (WEAI)
Climate
Shock/ Coping  Adaptation
Variability
New WEAI
Baseline WEAI
CCAFS • Resources
• Resources
Intervention(s) • Decisions
• Decisions
• Gender division of
• Gender division of
labor
labor
Climate
Planned ---- Adaptation
Change
Qualitative
research on
Policy
preferences by
gender
Change in WEAI = New WEAI – Baseline WEAI

Gender & Climate Change Interventions
From Basic Principle: “Do no harm”
• i.e., avoid interventions that exacerbate gender
& social inequalities, deepen poverty
To End Goal: transformative change = gender
justice
• Utilize both men and women‟s knowledge &
agency
• May be precondition for resilience

Presentation
Data requirements: what we need to know
1. Distribution of ownership & control over resources
2. How decisions are made & by whom
3. Gender division of labor (production & reproduction)
Illustrate with examples from:
• Latin America
• Agricultural censuses
• LSMS surveys
• Gender Asset Gap project (Ecuador, Ghana & India)
• Representative household surveys at national/state level
Main point:
• Resources, decisions, gender division of labor are variables
• Socially constructed; vary in time and place

Gender disaggregated data provide the
building blocks to assess:
• Who affected by climate change?
• Who made worse/better off
• The needs/priorities of men and women, given
gender roles
• The changes implied by adaptation strategies
• Responsibilities, work loads, participation

Resources
• Land*
• Inputs
• Ag equipment*
• Livestock*
• Water
• Credit
• Education
• Information
• Organization (groups, networks)

1. Distribution of Land by Sex
in Latin America
Agricultural Censuses
• Don‟t ask who owns the land
• Focus is on „landholder‟ or main agriculturalist
• Too often end up with household head
• Doesn‟t take into account that farm management
might be shared by husband & wife, or that they
might manage different agricultural activities
(crops vs. livestock)

Distribution of Landholders by Sex,
Agricultural Censuses for Latin America
Country Year % Women % Men Total
Argentina 2002 18.2 81.8 100%
Brazil 2006 12.7 87.3 100%
Chile 1997 21.9 78.3 100%
2007 29.9 70.1 100%
Dominican 1960 11.4 88.6 100%
Rep.
1998 10.2 89.8 100%
Ecuador 2000 25.4 74.6 100%
Guatemala 1979 6.6 93.4 100%
2003 7.8 92.2 100%
Nicaragua 2001 18.1 81.9 100%
Paraguay 1991 9.4 90.6 100%
Panama 2001 29.3 70.7 100%
Peru 1972 13.3 86.7 100%
1998 10.2 89.8 100%
Uruguay 2000 18.1 81.9 100%
Source: Deere 2010

Advances
2010 round of Agricultural Censuses
• Will now allow for joint landholders and sub-holders
• Still don‟t ask about land ownership
Main benefit:
• Sometimes can get disaggregated information
(department/province/municipality)
• Notwithstanding shortcomings of data, relevant to consider for
CCAFS baseline sites

Surveys
Living Standard Measurement Studies (LSMS)
• A few have begun to ask: Who owns the land?
• Useful in comparing countries
Problems:
• Can not always disaggregate beyond rural/urban or
departmental/provincial level
• Comparability:
• Some surveys only ask about titled land (*), not all owned parcels
• Not all ask about joint ownership of land

Distribution of Parcels by Form
of Ownership, Latin America
Country Year % Women % Men % Joint Total
Honduras 2004 12.0 87.2 0.8 100%*
280,088
Mexico 2002 19.8 66.3 13.9 100%
4.9 m.
Nicaragua 2005 16.8 79.2 4.0 100%*
269,231
Peru 2000 12.6 74.8 12.6 100%*
2.9 m.
* Titled land only
Source: Deere, Alvarado & Twyman
2012

Distribution of Landowners by Sex, Latin America
100
90
80
70
60
% 50
40 Men
30 Women
20
10
0
Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Paraguay
2001 2004* 2002a 2005* 2000*
*Includes only land that is titled/registered
Source: Deere, Alvarado & Twyman, 2012

Distribution of Parcels by Form of Ownership, Rural
80%
71%
69%
70%
60%
52%
50%
40%
40%
30% 26% 25% 26%
25%
20% 18%
14%
12%
9%
10%
4% 4%
2% 2%
0%
INDIA GHANA ECUADOR UGANDA
Individual Male Individual Female Principle Couple Other
Source: Household Asset Surveys, in Doss et al 2012

Incidence of Ownership of Agricultural
Parcels, Reported vs. Documented ownership (rural)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20% Male
Female
15%
10%
5%
0%
India Ghana Ecuador Uganda India Ghana Ecuador Uganda
Agricultural Land Agricultural Land, with documents

What data on land ownership tells us:
• Degree of gender inequality
• Women‟s security of tenure
o Vulnerability in the face of adversity
• Whether women will be able to use land as collateral to
get credit
o Might be required to adopt climate resistant varieties
• Whether women are treated as „serious farmers‟ by state
agents
Women‟s ownership of land may also affect their
household‟s well-being

Impact of Different Gender Variables on
Household Wellbeing
Honduras Nicaragua
Food Expenditure
Female land ownership pos*** pos***
Female headship neg*** neg***
Female income pos*** neg
Children’s Schooling Attainment
Female land ownership pos*** pos***
Female headship neg*** neg***
Source: Katz & Chamorro (2003)

Incidence of Ownership of Small
Agricultural Equipment (rural)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Male
Female
30%
20%
10%
0%
INDIA GHANA ECUADOR UGANDA
AG EQUIP, SMALL

Who in the Household Owns the Livestock? Nicaragua 2001
90
80
70
60
50 Men
%
40 Women
Couples
30
20
10
0
Cattle Work animals Pigs Poultry
Source: Deere, Alvarado & Twyman (2012)

2. Ownership and Control over Land
Effective land rights:
• Legal rights (ability to use, impede others from
using without permission, ability to transfer
rights to others)
• Social recognition of these rights
Control:
• Capacity to decide on how to use land
• Ability to decide how products/income
generated are to be utilized

Distribution of Owners and Decision Makers among
Land-owning Households
Variable % Women % Men % Joint Total
HONDURAS
Owners 12.1 86.3 1.6 100%
227,769
Decision 8.7 91.3 - 100%
Makers
NICARAGUA
Owners 16.9 79.0 4.1 100%
160,084
Decision 8.8 91.2 - 100%
Makers
Source: Deere, Alvarado & Twyman (2012)

Implications
1. Comparison problematic: different units of analysis
• Asked about ownership at parcel level
• But asked about decision-making at level of farm/household
(likely to reflect household head)
• Didn‟t ask about joint decision-making
2. Can‟t assume the owner makes the decisions
regarding the asset
3. Decision-making (or landholder) not necessarily a good
proxy for ownership
**Importance of collecting data on both ownership &
decision-making at parcel level**

Ecuador 2010 Assets Survey:
Agricultural Decision Questions
• Minimum questions to • Who in the household made
the decision on what to
ask landowners cultivate?
• Decisions on own • Who made the decision on
what inputs to use?
plots which are
• If some of the harvest was
currently cultivated by sold, who made the decision
the household (last 12 on how much to sell?
• Who decided how to spend
months)
the money generated from the
• Women‟s responses sale?

Decisions by Partnered Women
Landowners over Own Parcels (%)
How Cultivation Inputs Sales Spending
Made:
Alone 18 23 15 23
Jointly 60 48 61 71
Not 22 29 24 6
involved
100 100 100 100
(n=228) (n=164) (n=115) (n=115)
Source: Deere & Twyman (2012)

Main conclusions of Ecuador study
• Majority of women landowners in Ecuador are farm
managers: participate in the agricultural decisions
regarding their own plots
• Husbands‟ and wives‟ perceptions of women‟s role in ag
decision-making differs
• Women‟s participation in decision-making highly correlated
with their participation in ag fieldwork, alone or with
husbands
• Participation in decision-making highly associated with
women landowners also owning agricultural equipment
jointly with husbands
(Sources: Deere & Twyman (2012), Twyman (2012)

3. Gender Division of Labor
Type of gender disaggregated information that
would be useful:
• Data on agricultural field work by task and crop
and on animal raising activities
• Data on domestic labor, particularly, on hours
spent collecting water, fuel & fodder
• Data on all productive & reproductive activities
(total workload)

Share of Smallholder Households where
at least One Woman Participates
Activity García Rovira, Cajamarca, Peru
Colombia
Ag field work 18% 85%
Ag processing 53% 100%
Ag services 95% 61%
Animal care 88% 95%
Marketing 24% 88%
Weighted average 40% (n=114) 86% (n=92)
Source: Deere & León (1982)

Participation rates in agricultural field
tasks by sex (13 yrs.+)
Task García Cajamarca
Rovira
Women Men Women Men
Field prep. 10% 89% 24% 74%
Seedling prep. 29% 91% Na Na
Planting 30% 93% 48% 74%
Transplanting 7% 93% Na Na
Weeding 4% 93% 47% 80%
Cultivating 4% 93% 24% 79%
Harvesting 46% 94% 62% 81%
Threshing Na Na 66% 83%
All activities 25% 93% 45% 78%
(weighted)
Source: Deere & León (1982)

Who in the Household is Responsible?
Smallholders in Cajamarca, Peru
Task % Wife % Husband % Joint Total n
Seed 59 7 34 100% 104
selection
Collects 13 54 33 100% 92
manure &
fertilizes
Purchases 3 53 44 100% 34
seed or
fertilizer
Decides 15 47 38 100% 104
where, what
and when to
plant
Gets non- 7 79 14 100% 94
household
labor
Coordinates 6 49 45 100% 98
field work
Decides how 56 7 37 100% 93
harvest to be
used
Decides on 36 16 48 100% 77
crop sales
Decides on 39 11 41 100% 86
animal sales
Source: Deere & León (1982)

Total Workloads by Sex (hrs. per week)
Colombia (2008) Ecuador (2007)
Women Men Women Men
Unpaid 60.8 33.0 Unpaid 67.1 39.1
Paid 42.4 50.4 Paid 40.3 48.1
Total 103.2 83.4 Total 107.5 87.2
Source: ECLAC (2010), based on national
surveys

Other Crucial Questions: Food security,
water and energy
• Need to know about water access: rainfed/irrigation and
how water secured for domestic use
- potential differences by gender for agriculture,
livestock, household use
• Need to know about energy sources: access to
electricity, sources of fuel
• Need to know about animal feed/fodder

What this type of information allows:
Assess whether women more vulnerable to
climate change
• Whether workloads will increase
• More likely to lose access to resources
• Less likely to be able to mobilize resources
under conditions of adversity
Provides means to evaluate potential impact of
different interventions on current gender roles

Factors that Affect Participation of Men &
Women in Adaptive Strategies
• Access to information
• Degree of organization
• Gender roles
• Women have less mobility than men
• Lower rates of participation in groups/community
• Women more time constrained
Evidence from behavioral studies:
• High pay-off from organizing women as well as men to identify &
carry out adaptive/mitigation strategies

In Conclusion
• Involving both men and women potentially a win-
win proposition for adaptation strategies
• Challenge of making sure adaptation strategies
also a win-win proposition for women
• To be able to assess these propositions:
• Need gender disaggregated data

Incidence of Ownership of Livestock, rural
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Male
Female
20%
10%
0%
INDIA
INDIA
INDIA
GHANA
UGANDA
GHANA
UGANDA
GHANA
UGANDA
ECUADOR
ECUADOR
ECUADOR
LIVESTOCK, LARGE LIVESTOCK, SMALL POULTRY

Distribution of Modes of Acquisition of
Agricultural Land, by sex, rural
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
Inheritance/gift
40.0% Market purchase
Other
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
men women men women men women men women
INDIA GHANA ECUADOR UGANDA
Source: Doss et al 2012

Adaptive Behavior
Propositions from behavioral studies
1. Women more risk averse than men
2. Women less overconfident than men
3. Women seek out help and listen to advice
4. Women change their strategies in response to new
information
(Source: Patt, Dazé, Suarez 2009)