Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN): A Framework for Analysis and Programming

288 views

Published on

Presented by IFPRI Senior Research Fellow Alex De Pinto

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN): A Framework for Analysis and Programming

  1. 1. The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN): A Framework for Analysis and Programming Alex De Pinto, IFPRI December 15, 2017
  2. 2. SOME BACKGROUND
  3. 3. Answer the needs of today Support long-term policies that can deal with the contingencies of changing climate regimes Address these needs in a potentially very different environment Agricultural development must meet multiple challenges
  4. 4. Most evidence points to the need to “think bigger” than field-level activities  The DRC: Most often than not agriculture poses a problem insofar as it can cause deforestation while, comparatively, little damage is caused by its emissions (Li et al 2015,Gockowski and Sonwa 2011; Burney et al. 2010).  Colombia: policies that act on the interface pastureland/livestock and forests are key to achieving economic growth in the next 20 years (average ~ $50 Million per year) and GHG emissions reduction (average 90 Million tons CO2 e per year) (De Pinto et al.,2016).  Even CSA, when interpreted (reductively) as a set of agronomic practices and technologies: Best possible outcome considering maize, wheat, and rice (~41% of global harvested area and ~64% of GHG emission from crop production) ~ 10% of 1 Gt CO2e goal (De Pinto et al., Forthcoming).
  5. 5. Evidence on Gender and Climate Change  Men and women have different absorptive and adaptive capacity o Livelihood activities and assets o Access to productive resources (Deere and Doss 2006; Perez et al. 2014; Peterman et al. 2014) o Access to information (Bernier et al. 2015; Jost et al 2015; Tall et al. 2014) o Different perceptions (Oloukoi et al., 2014; Twyman et al., 2014) o Institutions (e.g. social norms) (Nielsen and Reenberg 2010)  Different preferences and needs for responding to shocks and stressors and different bargaining power (Bernier et al. 2015; Jost et al. 2015; Perez et al. 2014; Twyman et al. 2014)  Different outcomes: costs and benefits of climate shocks and response choices not equally distributed o Climate shocks and asset dynamics (Dillon and Quinones 2011; Goh 2012; Quisumbing, Kumar, & Behrman 2011) o What happens after technology adoption? (Beuchelt and Badstue 2013; Nelson and Stathers 2009; Theis et al. 2017)  Gender integration into programs and projects is often lacking (Bryan et al. 2017; Ragasa et al. 2013)
  6. 6. Climate Change and Nutrition Linkages  Undernutrition is a consequence of climate change (Phalkey et al. 2015; Springmann et al. 2016; Myers et al. 2017; Fanzo et al. 2017) o Impacts on food availability and prices o Impacts on consumption of healthy foods (fruits and vegetables)  Nutrition and health status also affect absorptive and adaptive capacity (Victora et al. 2008; Haas et al. 1995; Rivera et al. 1995) o Physical capabilities and productivity  Link between diet choices and environmental outcomes o e.g. link between consumption of animal source foods and GHG emissions and water (Vetter et al. 2017; Ranganathan et al. 2016)  Value chains as a frame for thinking about climate-smart practices that maximize nutrition (Ruel et al. 2013; Fanzo et al. 2017) o e.g. seed choice, food storage and processing, climate-proofing marketing distribution and retail to ensure supply side of nutrition
  7. 7. What are our available responses? Current consumption and degradation of natural resources and ecosystems exceeds their regeneration rates and this pushes us against what are considered the safe planetary boundaries (Rockstrom et al. 2009, Steffen et al. 2015). Productivity-based solutions “à la green revolution” are not sufficient to answer to the multi-dimensional problems we are facing.
  8. 8. Our thinking must be enriched with system-thinking (interactions of agricultural land with carbon-rich environments, include agroforestry, crop-livestock and silvopastoral systems). Think about post-harvest and off- farm losses, about value chains and food production- consumption systems. The role of trade. We must recognize the multiple pathways through which nutrition, health, gender equality influence the set of available climate change responses and other development outcomes. To be transformative our frameworks must be inclusive
  9. 9. The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN): A Framework for Analysis and Programming
  10. 10. THE GENDER, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUTRITION INTEGRATION INITIATIVE 1. Process/template for FTF focus countries to help understand climate science and implications for CSA programing that integrates nutrition and gender 2. Tool to think systematically about investments, data needs, knowledge gaps 3. Objective: enhance effectiveness and sustainability of investments in focus countries, based on country/mission tailored analyses and assessment of the potential for agricultural technologies
  11. 11. Bryan et al. 2017
  12. 12. Bryan et al. 2017
  13. 13. Bryan et al. 2017
  14. 14. Bryan et al. 2017 Physical capabilities and productivity Link between diet choices and environmental outcomes CSA practices have implications for nutrition Undernutrition as a consequence of cc Bryan et al. 2017
  15. 15. Gender differences in capacities Different preferences and decision-making power Feedback loops may be different Different impacts Different influence on the pathways Bryan et al. 2017
  16. 16. SOME IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES
  17. 17. How We Use the GCAN Framework  Frame synthesis of literature on climate change, gender and nutrition in selected countries  Guide engagement with missions during week-long engagements  Identify research gaps on key elements and relationships in the country context  Support integration of gender and nutrition in climate risk screening activities  Develop tools for use during project implementation
  18. 18. Understand Climate Trends and Risks. E.g. percentage change in yields due to climate change based on four climate models, 2000–2050 Source: Devised by authors based on (Rosenzweig et al. 2014) using weights from MapSPAM harvested area (You et al. 2014).
  19. 19. Nutrition profile  Priorities: o Global Hunger Index 2016 o Stunting in children under 5 years: (WHO cutoff ≥20%). o Wasting in children under 5 years: (WHO cutoff ≥5%) o Overweight and Obesity in women ≥20 years  Micronutrient deficiencies (varies with urban/rural, wealth quintile) o Anemia in women of reproductive age o Anemia in preschool-aged children o Zinc deficiency in preschool-aged children o Vit A deficiency in children and women
  20. 20. Absorptive and Adaptive Capacity: Key Gendered Factors Include:  Gender roles within and outside of agriculture  Perceptions of climate change and climate risk  Livelihood activities  Assets (tangible and intangible)  Access to productive resources  Access to information  Institutions (e.g. social norms, social protection programs etc.)
  21. 21. 1,794 Kcal day-1 1,793 Kcal day-1 2,300 Kcal day-1 Source: De Pinto, Smith and Robertson: Risk, climate change and land-use choices. Some insights from Zambia. Forthcoming. Risk aversion can be a deterrent to more resilient livelihoods. Most research works with trends and averages in precipitation and temperature and considers the effect of volatility a secondary effect. Zambia: Climate-induced yield variability leads to shifts to less productive and less nutritive crops; better climate information and technologies that reduce yield variability can reduce this form of maladaptation Risk affects dietary diversity
  22. 22. Think of Climate Change Responses that: Input Supply Production Post Harvest Storage Processing Distribution Marketing and Retail Consumption Food Utilization Limited available land, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, temperature and water stress, CO2 effects Contamination , spoilage, increased electricity demands, damage from extreme weather events Improper processing of foods, nutrient losses during milling, combination with unhealthy ingredients Climate impacts on transportation and retail infrastructure, export/import impacts on prices and availability Lack of access to inputs (seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, extension) Advertising campaigns for unhealthy foods, loss of small food retailers Lack of knowledge of nutrition, nutrient losses during preparation, increased diarrhea & enteropathy Minimize nutrition “exiting” the value chain Maximize nutrition “entering” the food value chain New production locations, diversification, CO2 fertilization, focus on women farmers, extension Aflatoxin control, refrigeration Fermentation, drying, fortification, product reformulation (reduce salt, sugar, unhealthy fats) Moving food from areas of shortage to areas of surplus, targeting of vulnerable groups Improved varieties, bio- fortification, fertilizer, irrigation Messaging on the importance of nutrition and sustainability, benefits of certain foods Home fortification (fish powders), training in nutritious food preparation, time mgmt, food preservation Source: Fanzo, Downs and McLaren 2017
  23. 23.  Men more likely to report planting trees  Both reported changing crop types, varieties and planting dates but preferences for crop types and varieties may be different  Insurance preferences are different  Women more likely to mention strategies such as food storage, starting an off-farm business, fuel efficient cookstoves 51 78 48 81 32 55 3 67 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Nyando, Kenya Wote, Kenya Kaffrine, Senegal Rakai, Uganda Men Women Responses to Climate Change: Different Preferences % of Men and Women Adapting to Perceived Climate Change Men and Women have Different Preferences for CSA Practices Source: IFPRI-CCAFS intra-household survey.
  24. 24. Pathways: Influenced by Gender • Production pathway: Who makes crop/production choices? Men and women may choose different crops and for different purposes (consumption or sale)—implications for nutrition • Income pathway: Who controls income? Men and women have different consumption preferences • Asset pathway: Gender-differentiated asset dynamics have implications for well-being outcomes for men and women • Labor pathway: Different CSA practices have different time implications for men and women (e.g. women’s time burden affect their caring capacity—a key determinant of child nutritional status)
  25. 25. Climate Conditions and Responses Affect Food Prices and Nutritional Outcomes • Food price volatility is influenced by climate conditions e.g. seasonality, shocks, etc. • Need to consider implications of climate change on production and the effects on food prices • Food price volatility poses risks for everyone – from farmers to consumers Sources: Global Panel (2016); Hauenstein Swan, S., and B. Vaitla (2007); Hendrix, C. (2016); Breisinger, C. et al. (2012)
  26. 26. Outcomes: Will CSA Close or Exacerbate Gender Inequalities? Source: ILSSI baseline survey data Source: Bryan et al. 2017. unpublished COUNTRY Irrigators Non-irrigators Contributors to disempowermentWEAI Score WEAI Score Ethiopia 0.82 0.85 •Group membership •Leisure time •Speaking in public •Credit access •Control over use of income Ghana 0.82 0.80 •Credit access •Workload •Group membership •Control over use of income Tanzania 0.88 0.86 •Group membership •Credit access •Leisure time •Speaking in public •Autonomy in production
  27. 27. Thank you for listening! Please visit our website for more information and materials: https://gcan.ifpri.info/ Email me with any questions: a.depinto@cgiar.org

×