MSc degree (Climate Change,
Agriculture & Food Security)
Lecture Topic: Gender, Agriculture
and Climate Change
Dr. Jennifer Twyman, CCAFS-CIAT,
Cali, Colombia
www.nuigalway.ie/ccafs

Learning Objectives
1. Give an example of how gender affects
vulnerability to climate change (in terms of roles,
resources, or power in decision-making).
2. Understand the desired gender outcome and the
approach CCAFS takes to achieve it.
3. Define and explain women’s empowerment.
4. Explain the difference between practical and
strategic gender needs.
5. Explain the difference between a headship analysis
and intra-household gender analysis.
6. Explain the intra-household bargaining power
theory.
7. Give examples of CCAFS gender research.

1. Link between
GENDER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

Why Study Gender, Agriculture &
Climate Change?
• Gender shapes men’s and women’s
experiences of climate change (or climate
variability) and their vulnerability to it as well
as their adaptive capacities
• CARE 2010 gives examples related to the
following domains:
– Roles (gender division of labor)
– Access to and/or control over resources
– Decision-making power

Roles
Women Men Link to CC Vulnerability
Stay home to
Can migrate to
care for
access
children and
economic
sick or elderly
opportunities
family
members
Men who can migrate may make it easier
to deal with a crisis and could result in
household benefits. However, it may also
increase women’s workload. It can also
increase women’s exposure to other risks.
Produce
subsistence
crops (for hh
consumption)
Produce
market-oriented
crops
and livestock
Men can often claim more fertile land for
growing the market-oriented crops, leaving
women to grow crops and less fertile
(more vulnerable) land
Responsible
for food
storage and
preparation
Responsible for
selling produce
and livestock
Climate change/variability impacts food
preparation (amount of water and
fuelwood) and can impact food stores in
extreme events.
Adapted from CARE, 2010

Resources
Women Men Link to CC Vulnerability
Have lower
Have higher
incomes and
incomes and
are more likely
are more likely
to be
to own land
economically
and other
dependent
assets
Men typically have more money and other
assets than women. Men’s savings provide
a “buffer” during tough times, along with
other assets, make it easier for them to
invest in alternative livelihoods.
Have less
access to
education and
information
Have more
access to
education and
information
Information is key to managing climate
risks; men are more likely to have access to
such information and know how to use the
information and as such may be better
equipped to adapt.
Adapted from CARE, 2010

Decision-Making Power
Women Men Link to CC Vulnerability
Have less power
Have more power
over family
over family
finances and
finances and
other assets
other assets
Without the power to decide about family
resources and finances, women’s ability to
manage risks by, for example, diversifying crops,
storing food or seeds or saving money, is
limited.
Have limited
engagement in
community
politics
Have greater
involvement /
decision-making
power in
community
politics
Men are likely to have more influence over local
governance – promoting policies and programs
that may not support women’s rights and/or
priorities.
Face many
cultural
restrictions on
mobility
Face few cultural
restrictions on
mobility
Mobility is a key factor in accessing information
and services. It is also critical for escaping
danger posed by extreme weather such as
floods. Therefore, women are often at higher
risks from these events.
Adapted from CARE, 2010

2. CCAFS Approach
EMPOWERING WOMEN
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

Gender IDO (The Desired Gender
Outcome)
• CGIAR Intermediate Development Outcome (IDO)
on Gender:
– (Also known as the women’s empowerment IDO)
– Increased control over resources and participation in
decision-making by women and other marginalized
groups.
• CCAFS specifies:
– Women and other marginalized groups have increased
access to and control over productive assets, inputs,
information, food, and markets; and strengthened
participation in decision-making processes.
Photo by Manon Koningstein

Two prong approach
• Gender specific research
– CCAFS gender survey
– Specific gender activities in some projects (FS4
project example)
• Integrating Gender in CCAFS projects
(See CCAFS gender strategy: Ashby et al. 2012)
Photo by Manon Koningstein

Key Research Questions: CCAFS
Gender
• T1-Adaptation:
– How might men and women be (differentially)
affected by long-run climate change?
– What are their adaptation options and
strategies?
– How might their capacities be different?
– Which climate-smart agricultural practices and
interventions are most likely to benefit women
in particular, where, how and why?
– What interventions, actions, strategies and
approaches will help stimulate them?
(Ashby et al 2012 and CCAFS 2014)
Photo by L.
Ortega

Key Research Questions: CCAFS
Gender
• T2-Risk Management:
– What are the characteristics and causes of
gender differentials in vulnerability to
weather-related risk?
– What is the potential for climate-related
information to help men and women manage
climate-related risk?
(Ashby et al 2012 and CCAFS 2014)
Photo by L.
Ortega

Key Research Questions: CCAFS
Gender
• T3-Pro-poor mitigation:
– What are the institutional arrangements that
provide incentives for reducing carbon
footprints?
– How are the arrangements gender
differentiated (i.e. how are benefits shared)?
– What could be done to make these
institutional arrangements more gender-equitable?
(Ashby et al 2012 and CCAFS 2014)
Photo by L.
Ortega

Key Research Questions: CCAFS
Gender
• T4-Integration for Decision-Making:
– What are the trade-offs and complementarities
between different adaptation and mitigation
options for dealing with climate change (at
different spatial and temporal scales)?
– Are these gender differentiated?
– How do gender relations and control over
resources affect decisions about which portfolio
to adopt?
Photo by L. (Ashby et al 2012 and CCAFS 2014)
Ortega

3. Defining & Operationalizing
WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT
Photo by: Gian Betancourt

Women’s Empowerment
Achievement
(Outcomes)
Agency
(process)
Access to
Resources
(Precondition)
“…the processes by
which those who have
been denied the ability
to make choices acquire
such an ability.” (p. 437)
Kabeer (1999)

Women’s Empowerment:
Another Definition
• Relations: power
relations through which
she negotiates her path
• Agency: changes in her
own aspirations and
capabilities
• Structure: Environment
that surrounds and
conditions her choices
CARE 2010.

Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture
Index (WEAI)
• Used by USAID in Feed the Future Countries
• 5 domains used for measurement:
– Production (women’s participation in decision-making
about agricultural production)
– Resources (Ownership, access and decision-making
over productive resources)
– Income (control over use of income)
– Leadership (membership & influence in groups)
– Time (time allocation among productive,
domestic, and leisure activities)
Alkire et al. 2013

Operationalizing Women’s
Empowerment
• Women have control over key
assets/resources (such as land, livestock,
income/benefits, etc.)
• Women participate in decision-making
processes within
– Households, and
– Community groups.

4. Gender Needs:
PRACTICAL AND STRATEGIC
GENDER NEEDS
Photo by: Neil Palmer

Practical and Strategic Gender Needs
• Practical and Strategic Gender Needs
– Molyneux, 1985 and Moser 1993
– Practical gender needs are associated with
women’s socially accepted roles (i.e. related to
water provision, healthcare, employment, etc.)
– Strategic gender needs are those related to
inequalities and power dynamics (i.e. domestic
violence, legal rights, equal pay, etc.)

Practical and Strategic Gender Needs
in CCAFS context
• By addressing practical gender needs we can
ensure that women are effectively included in
projects and that at a minimum CCAFS projects
do not increase gender inequalities.
• A focus on strategic gender needs could be
considered a gender transformative approach
– Seeks to transform gender roles
– Promotes more equitable relationships between men
and women
• http://aas.cgiar.org/penang-dialogues/building-coalitions-creating-
change/gender-transformative-approach
• This is how we will achieve the Gender IDO!

5. Unit of analysis and
HEADSHIP VS. INTRA-HOUSEHOLD
GENDER ANALYSES
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

Unit of Analysis and Implications for
Gender Research
• Household—gender analysis reduced to
differences by sex of household head (ignores
women in male headed households)
• Individual—lacks information about key
relationships
• Intra-household—usually focuses on
relationship between husbands and wives

Unit of Analysis: Other Issues
• Who are the farmers?
– Women are not often identified as farmers.
– Bias against women in household surveys
• Headship, landholders, principal agriculturalists…
• Culturally this is usually the male head of household
– But, they play a large role in agricultural production
• Labor
• Decision-making
• Access to and control over productive assets and other
resources
(Deere, Alvarado, and Twyman 2012)

6. Some key concepts related to
INTRA-HOUSEHOLD BARGAINING
POWER
Photo by: Neil Palmer

Bargaining Power within the
Household
• Bargaining Power:
– Related to fall-back position
– The person’s well-being outside the household if the
household dissolved (i.e. by divorce, separation,
widowhood, etc.)
• Components of the fall-back position:
– Women’s ownership of assets
– Income-generating possibilities
(Sen 1990; Agarwal 1994)

Asset
Ownership
Principal Hypothesis
Bargaining
power
More agency
(More involved in
HH decision-making)
Strong fall-back position

7. Some Examples of Gender, Agriculture and Climate Change Research
7A. An Example from Ecuador
GENDER ASSET GAP PROJECT—
WOMEN’S ROLE IN AGRICULTURE
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

Agency = Participation in decision-making
• What decisions?
– For empowerment, strategic decisions: whether to
marry, to have children, to be employed, what
employment, how to spend own income and in what
assets to invest (Kabeer 1999)
• Does the form of decision-making matter?
– She alone decides (autonomy)
– Joint decisions with spouse
• Does it matter if the husband agrees with how
she perceives decisions to be made?

Ownership of Agricultural Land
Form of
ownership
% of parcels
Individual Man 29.0
Individual
28.1
woman
Joint by Couple 34.4
Other Joint 8.6
Total 100
• 12.4% of households
reported owning land.
• 513 parcel are owned
and worked directly by
family members.

Key Questions
1. Do partnered women (married or in
consensual union) land owners participate in
making decisions over their parcels?
2. Do husbands’ and wives’ perceptions of
women’s participation differ?
3. What factors explain women’s participation in
agricultural decision-making according to
husbands and wives?

Data: Survey Questions about Agricultural
Decisions (in the last 12 months)
• Who in the household
decided what to plant?
• Who decided what
inputs to use?
• If part of the harvest
was sold, who decided
how much to sell?
• Who decided how to
spend the income from
the sale of agricultural
products?
Subsample of couples, where the woman is an owner (individual or joint owner).

Women land owners’ participation in
decisions, according to the women
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
What to plant
(n=228)
What inputs
to use
(n=164)
How much to
sell (n=115)
How to spend
income
(n=115)
Woman alone
Jointly
Does not participate
n=number of parcels owned by women

Analysis
• We are interested in comparing men’s and
women’s perceptions about women’s
participation in decisions:
– Sub-sample where both reported about decision-making
(182 parcels).
• We use an index, 0 to 1, based on the proportion
of decisions in which the woman participates out
of the total number decisions taken on the
parcel.
• Two indices to measure perceptions of men and
women separately.

Distribution of the index of
perceptions of women’s participation
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.25 0.33 0.5 0.67 0.75 1
Women
Men

Models
• Dependent Variable =
index (%)
• Tobit Regresions with
random effects and
instrumental variables
• Separate regressions for
women and men
• Variables of interest:
– Form of land ownership
(individual or joint)
– Woman’s share of
couple’s wealth
– Participation in fieldwork
– Off-farm work

Explanatory and Control Variables
Descriptive Statistics – Women’s Reporting (n=182)
Explanatory Variables
Woman does
fieldwork*
71%
Woman works off-farm*
30%
Joint property 95%
Woman’s share of
48%
couple’s wealth*
Control Variables
Couple is indigenous 20%
Number of adults
(besides principal
couple)
1,2
Annual Crop 84%
Rural 86%
Coast 15%
*Instrumental Variables

RESULTS: Factors associated with women’s
participation in decision-making (Women’s
perception)
• More participation:
– Individual land ownership (compared to joint
ownership)
– Woman’s participation in fieldwork
– Younger women
• Less participation:
– Woman’s off-farm work

RESULTS: Factors associated with women’s
participation in decision-making (Men’s
perception)
• More participation:
– Woman’s participation in fieldwork ***
– Woman’s share of couple’s wealth
– Woman works off-farm ###
– Annual crops (compared to perennials and other crop
types)
– Couple is indigenous
– Husband is much older than wife
• Less participation:
– Woman has more years of schooling
***Both agree
### Disagree

Key Results
• Men and women perceive different factors
associated with women’s participation in
agricultural decision-making.
• Bargaining power variables (woman’s share of
wealth, off-farm work) influence his perception
but not hers.
• In woman’s perception: the woman’s share of
wealth is not significant. She could be using her
bargaining power in other arenas of household
decision-making.

Summary – Agricultural Decisions
1. Most women land owners participate in agricultural
decisions; in Ecuador, most women are managing their
parcels either individually or jointly.
2. Women’s participation depends on their marital status
and the form of ownership:
• Nearly all women household heads who are land owners make all the
decisions about their parcels.
• Married women (and those in consensual unions) who are individual land
owners are more likely to make the majority of decisions alone as
compared to women that jointly own their land with their spouse.
• Married women (and those in consensual unions) who are joint land
owners are more likely to make joint decisions or not to participate in
agricultural decision-making at all.

General Conclusions
• Men and women have different perceptions about women’s
participation in agricultural decision-making.
• Husbands and wives do not always agree.
• Methodological implication: Who you ask in a household survey is
important!
• Evidence from Ecuador indicates that women’s asset
ownership impacts her bargaining power in the home and on
the farm.
• A woman’s asset ownership is associated with her greater
participation in decisions and with egalitarian gender
relations.

Policy Implications
• Promoting women’s asset ownership, especially
among the asset poor, could lead to more
egalitarian gender relations in the household.
• If women land owners are actively participating in
agricultural decisions, they must be recognized as
farmers to achieve agricultural policy objectives,
such as food security and adaptation to climate
change.

7B. An Example of On-Going CCAFS Gender-Specific Research
CCAFS GENDER SURVEY
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

46
Gender Specific Research:
CCAFS Gender Survey
Plot-level intra-household gender and CSA survey:
Examining gender differences in:
• assets, information, decision-making
• agricultural practices enhancing climate resilience
• perceptions and values shaping adaptation choices
CCAFS gender survey and training materials:
http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/CCAFSbaseline

47
Some Initial Findings
In 2 regions of Kenya, we found:
There is still a very low
awareness, and often significantly
lower awareness of women than
of men, of many water-conserving
and soil enhancing agricultural
practices that will help build
climate resilience (along with
other livelihood benefits)
Reboot

48
Some findings, cont’d
However, once aware, women are just as likely, or more likely
to adopt CSA practices as men
Such as: water harvesting, agroforestry, crop residue mulching,
composting, manure management, drought/heat/flood tolerant varieties,
minimum tillage and cover cropping (conservation ag practices)
But, institutional (e.g. property rights) and market-related
constraints are still restrictive in many places
V. Atakos
See also: IFPRI’s gender in ag resources:
gaap.ifpri.info
ifpri.org/book-
9075/ourwork/program/weai-resource-center

49
Some findings, cont’d
Women are receiving significantly less
information on agricultural practices
and climate/weather across Africa and
S. Asia
Bringing together Meteorological
Services, Extension, Researchers &
NGO’s/practitioners around improved
climate services can enhance adaptive
capacity and resilience of vulnerable
people
A. Tall
ccafs.cgiar.org

7C. Some Ideas…
FUTURE CCAFS GENDER RESEARCH
Photo by: Neil Palmer

Other Gender-Specific Research Ideas
• What are the best (gender transformative)
approaches for including gender in CCAFS
projects in terms of empowering women?
– Hypothesis-the following types of approaches would
empower women:
• Approaches that consider both practical and strategic gender
needs;
• Participatory approaches;
• Including men (and thinking about masculinities); or
• Others?
• Need to design research to test these
hypotheses.

7D. Some More Examples:
INTEGRATING GENDER IN CCAFS
PROJECTS
Photo by: Neil Palmer

Gender Integrated in CCAFS projects
• Analyzing gender relations during initial stages of the
project
– Gender Division of Labor (women’s role in agriculture and
the farm household)
– Access to and/or control over resources
– Participation in decision-making at various levels
• Why?
– Understand potential vulnerabilities to climate change as
well as differentiated adaptive capacities of both men and
women.
– Understand how to target both men and women to
effectively meet project objectives.
– Ensure that CCAFS projects aren’t increasing gender
inequalities

Example 1: Playing Out Transformative
Adaptation in East Africa
Photo by A. Eitzinger

Why gender?
• Understanding how gender differences impact
adoption of CSA practices.
– Resources
– Roles/Activities
– Decision-making power
Photo by A. Eitzinger

Methodology:
Qualitative
Workshops Transect Walks
Photos by A. Eitzinger

Methodology:
Quantitative
Survey Data—CCAFS Baseline Follow-up Survey

Gender Data
Qualitative Data
• Resources
– From interviews & informal
discussions
• Roles/Activities
– Workshops
• Decision-Making
– Workshops
Quantitative Survey Data
• Resources
– Who owns various assets?
• Roles/Activities
– Who does each activity
related to various crops?
• Decision-Making
– Who decides how to use
income from each crop?

Division of Tasks—Workshop Results
(Tanzania site)
According to Women According to Men

Gendered Division of Labor
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Land
preparation
Seed
selection
Who does which activities in beans production?
Planting Manual
weeding
Apply
fertilizers
Apply
compost
Apply
pesticides
Irrigation Harvest Post-harvest
Primarily male
Primarily female
Primarily joint
All hh members
Hired labor

Gendered Division of Assets &
Wealth
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Who is owner of asset?
(If someone in household
owns)
Primarily male
Primarily female
Primarily joint

Summary
 Men and women reported some differences in
terms of the gender division of labor.
 It’s important who you ask—you will get
varying results depending on if you ask men or
women.
 Many tasks done jointly but…
 Men tend to do land preparation.
Women tend to do seed selection and fertilizer
application.
 Promoting CSA practices need to consider this
division of labor.

Next Steps for this project
 Comparing the gender roles, resources, and
decision-making data with household
adaptation strategies.
 Does gender matter for adoption of CSA practices
(or other adaptation strategies)?

Example 2: Increasing food security and farming system
resilience in East Africa through wide-scale adoption of
climate-smart agricultural practices
• Goal: Improve food security and farming system resilience
of smallholder mixed crop-livestock farmers in East Africa
while mitigating climate change.
• Objectives:
– Assess Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices in terms of
adaptation, mitigation, and food production potential.
– Monitor and model land health, agronomic suitability, and
multi-dimensional trade-off analysis to identify locally
appropriate CSA practices;
– Implement and appraise the most promising CSA practices at
the local level to identify perceived benefits and barriers to
adoption as well as if/how these vary by socially differentiated
groups: men/women, age, race, ethnicity, class, etc.; and
– Upscale and out-scale CSA activities in East Africa through
strategic policy and development partnerships, including a CSA
AR4D pathway that collaborates directly with IFAD.

Specific Gender Activities
• Rural Appraisal of CSA
– Workshops with both men and women
– Understanding roles, resources, and decision-making
• M&E—potential use of cell phones
– Men’s and women’s access and ownership of
mobile phones
• CCAFS Gender Survey

Example 3: Local Level Adaptation
Strategies in Cauca, Colombia
• Series of Participatory Workshops at
community level
• Objective: Identify adaptation strategies fo
– Parcels/farms
– Communities
• Includes an initial analysis of GDoL
• Evaluate selected CSA practices based on
labor/time demands of household members

8. Summary
CONCLUSIONS & KEY MESSAGES
Photo by: Manon Koningstein

Key Messages
• Vulnerability to climate change is related to gender
norms. Especially to…
• Roles
• Resources
• Decision-making power
• CGIAR and CCAFS desired gender outcome:
• Empowerment of women
• Two-prong approach: gender-specific research
and integrate gender in CCAFS projects.

Key Messages (cont’d)
• Women’s empowerment includes: resources,
agency, and achievements (Kabeer, 1999).
• Both Practical and Strategic Gender needs must be
considered.
• Intra-household bargaining power theory:
• Fallback position is important, and depends on
• Asset ownership; and
• Income earning potential.
• This determines bargaining power with
households.

Key Messages (cont’d)
• Clearly identifying the unit of analysis for gender
research is important.
• Headship analysis
• focuses on differences between male and
female headed households.
• does not consider gender relations within
households
• ignores women within male headed
households.
• Intra-household analysis focuses on
relationships (usually between husbands and
wives)

Recommended Reading
on Lecture Topic
• Bernier Q, Franks P, Kristjanson P, Neufeldt H, Otzelberger A, Foster K. 2013. Addressing
Gender in Climate-Smart Smallholder Agriculture. ICRAF Policy Brief 14. Nairobi, Kenya.
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
• CARE, 2010. Adaptation, gender and women’s empowerment. CARE International Climate
Change Brief, UK: CARE.
http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/adaptation/CARE_Gender_Brief_Oct2010.pdf
• CCAFS. 2014. Gender and climate change: Enabling people to reach their full potential in
adapting agriculture to climate change. Research in Action. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR
Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
• Deere, Carmen Diana, Gina Alvarado, y Jennifer Twyman. 2012. “Gender Inequality in Asset
Ownership in Latin America: Female Owners vs. Household Heads.” Development and
Change 43 (2): 505-530.
• FAO, 2012. FAO-CCAFS Training Guide: Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture
and Food Security for Rural Development. FAO: Rome. Available at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/md280e/md280e.pdf.
• French Gates, M. 2014. Putting women and girls at the center of development. Science 345:
1273 - 1275.
• Kabeer, Naila. 1999. “Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of
Women’s Empowerment.” Development and Change 30: 435-464.

More Reading
• Arora-Jonsson, S. 2011. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change,
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005
• Aboud, G. 2011. Gender and Climate Change: Supporting Resources Collection. BRIDGE. IDS.
• Agarwal, Bina. 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Alkire, S., R. Meinzen-Dick, A. Peterman, A. R. Quisumbing, G. Seymour, and A. Vaz. 2012. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture
Index. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1240. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Downloadable at:
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/women-s-empowerment-agriculture-index.
• Ashby, J, Kristjanson P, Thorton P, Campbell B, Vermeulen S, Wollenberg E. 2012. CCAFS Gender Strategy. CGIAR Research Program on
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at www.ccafs.cgiar.org.
• Brody, A., Demetriades, J. and Esplen, E. (2008). BRIDGE Occasional Paper: Gender and Climate Change: Mapping the Linkages—A
Scoping Study on Knowledge Gaps, Brighton: BRIDGE/IDS.
• CARE, 2014. 2015 and beyond: Action for a just, gender-equitable and sustainable future. CARE Breifing paper, September 2014.
• Chaudhury M, Kristjanson P, Kyagazze F, Naab J B, Neelormi S. 2012. Participatory gender-sensitive approaches for addressing key
climate change-related research issues: evidence from Bangladesh, Ghana, and Uganda. Working Paper 19. Copenhagen: CGIAR
Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
• Deere, C.D. & J. Twyman (2012) “Asset Ownership and Egalitarian Decision-making in Dual-headed Households in Ecuador.” Review of
Radical Political Economics 44(3): 313-20.
• Deere, C.D, L. Boakye-Yiadom, C. Doss, A.D. Oduro, H. Swaminathan, J. Twyman & Suchitra J. Y. (2013). Women’s Land Ownership and
Participation in Agricultural Decision-making: Evidence from Ecuador, Ghana and Karnataka, India. The Gender Asset Gap Project
Research Brief Series No. 2.
• Lambrou, Y. and Nelson, S. 2010. Farmers in a changing climate: Does gender matter? Food Security in Andhra Pradesh, India, Rome:
FAO.
• Moser, Caroline. 1993. Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. London and New York: Routledge.
• Molyneux, M. (1985) ‘Mobilization without emancipation? women’s interests, state and revolution in Nicaragua’, Feminist Studies,
11(2).
• Otzelberger, A. (2008). Gender-responsive strategies on climate change: recent progress and ways forward for donors, Brighton:
BRIDGE/IDS.
• Patt, A., et al. 2009. “Gender and climate change vulnerability: what’s the problem, what’s the solution?” In Matthais, R. and Ibarraran,
M. (eds) Distributional Impacts of Climate Change and Disasters. Chettenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. 2009: 82-102.
• Sen, Amartya. 1990. “Gender and Cooperative Conflict,” in Irene Tinker, ed. Persistent Inequalities, pp. 123-149. New York: Oxford
University Press.
• Skinner, E. and Brody, A. 2011. Gender and Climate Change. Gender and Development InBrief, BRIDGE Bulletin, Issue 22, November
2011. Available at http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk.
• Twyman, J., C.D.Deere & P. Useche (2014). “Gendered Perceptions of Land Ownership and Agricultural Decision-making in Ecuador:
Who is the Farm Manager?” Working Paper, University of Florida.

Websites, tools & other learning resources
on Lecture Topic
• http://ccafs.cgiar.org/gender
• http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/category/gender/
• http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/ccafs-ea-fieldwork/
• http://www.genderassetgap.org
• Genderciat Twitter account
• http://aas.cgiar.org/penang-dialogues/building-coalitions-creating-
change/gender-transformative-approach
• gaap.ifpri.info
• ifpri.org/book-9075/ourwork/program/weai-resource-center