The document presents the Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN) framework. The framework was created to help countries understand climate impacts and integrate gender and nutrition into climate-smart agriculture programming. It provides tools to analyze relationships between climate trends, gender differences, and nutrition outcomes. The framework guides engagement with countries to identify research gaps and opportunities to enhance investments. It considers how climate responses could minimize nutrition losses and maximize gains across the food value chain. The framework also examines how climate conditions and responses may differently impact men and women's pathways and outcomes related to production, income, assets, and labor.

1. The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition
Integration Initiative (GCAN): A Framework for
Analysis and Programming
Alex De Pinto, IFPRI
December 15, 2017

2. SOME
BACKGROUND

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

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. Bryan et al. 2017

12. Bryan et al. 2017

13. Bryan et al. 2017

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. 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. SOME IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLES

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

19. 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).

21. 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

22. 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.)

24. 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

25. 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

26.  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.

28. 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)

30. 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)

31. 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

32. 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