PROTOCOL: Interventions promoting resilience through climate-smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review

The problem, condition or issue

Climate change is projected to have a substantial and widespread impact on crop production, food security and livelihoods globally, and developing countries are highly susceptible to further negative consequences (Campbell et al., 2016; IPCC, 2014). Extreme climate change events such as droughts, heavy rainfall, flooding, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity are expected to accelerate in many regions across the globe, impacting food production and supply (Field & Barros, 2014; Porter et al., 2014). Average and seasonal maximum temperatures are projected to continue rising, imposing a threat to crops, wildlife and freshwater supplies. Higher CO₂ levels can affect crop yields and are associated with reduced protein and nitrogen content in most crops, such as wheat, rice, barley, oats and potatoes, resulting in a loss of quality (USGCRP, 2014). Reduced grain quality could affect livestock, which contributes more than 15% of the global human protein supply. (USGCRP, 2014). Heat stress further increases the vulnerability of livestock to disease, reduces fertility, and reduces milk production. In the areas with increased rainfall, moisture-reliant pathogens could thrive. Resulting in increased use of parasiticide, adding a potential threat of parasiticide entering food chains (USGCRP, 2014). Rising ocean temperatures and ocean acidification have severely impacted the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture and, thus, the livelihoods of the communities that depend on fisheries (World Bank; FAO; IFAD, 2015).

Land Use, Land Cover Change (LULCC), and climate change are interrelated. Land use from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and land-use change from deforestation contributes to approximately 24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emission (Gerber et al., 2013); whereas global climate change impacts LULCC through changing precipitation patterns, land degradation and increasing temperature (Mafongoya et al., 2006; Mbow et al., 2019). The negative impacts of climate change on land include depleting natural resources, disrupting water cycles, declining biodiversity, and spreading diet-induced diseases. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change and LULCC because of their geographical and climatic conditions leading to soil and land degradation, including soil acidity, unavailability of micronutrients, low carbon content, and low water holding capacity (Jayne et al., 2014; Mafongoya et al., 2006). Statistics show that 65% of the workforce in Sub-Saharan Africa and 60% in South Asia work in agriculture and depend solely on agriculture (covering crops and livestock production as well as forestry, fisheries and aquaculture) for income, livelihoods, food and nutrition security (IPCC, 2007). Hence, many of the most vulnerable people are exposed to the effects of climate change and LULC through loss of rural livelihoods and income, loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, and food insecurity (Mbow et al., 2019).

Evidence suggests that within agriculture, women are disproportionately affected by the threats and shocks posed by climate change, especially in developing countries (Paavola & Neil, 2006; Petheram et al., 2010; UNDP, 2016). Women account for approximately 43% of agricultural labour force in developing countries, and they are critical to supporting production and providing food, nutirition and income security. (FAO, 2012). Women in agriculture continue to face several constraints, such as lack of land ownership and limited access to a range of critical services and inputs, including fertiliser, livestock, mechanical equipment, improved seed varieties, extension services and agricultural education (FAO, 2013). They are also burdened with reproductive and household work, including time spent obtaining water and fuel, caring for children and the sick, and processing food. This gender gap hampers their productivity and the achievement of broader economic and social development (FAO, 2012; Habtezion, 2013). Women in rural Africa and Asia rely extensively on biomass such as wood, agricultural commodities, waste, and forest resources for their energy and livelihoods. However, women's ability to obtain these necessary resources is hampered due to climate change. In climate shock, women are also more vulnerable to physical, sexual, and domestic violence (Neumayer & Thomas, 2007).

Furthermore, women's coping mechanisms and resilience patterns to climate stressors vary because of a complex interplay of ethnicity, religion, class, and age hierarchies (Jost et al., 2016). Women also have less access to productive resources than men, including natural resources (Howland et al., 2019), resulting in an over-reliance on harmful coping mechanisms—which might include maladaptive agricultural practices like overcropping, which depletes soil fertility, having to trade off scarce inputs such as water and time for agriculture versus other uses, or simply not being able to adapt to changing circumstances to grow crops best suited to meet household nutrition needs. Evidence from around the globe suggests that women play a critical and potentially transformative role in addressing food insecurity within their households and communities but continue to face obstacles (FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO, 2021; Mallick & Rafi, 2010; Mukherjee, 2009; Tomayko et al., 2017). Women are not only at risk as a result of their responsibilities in domestic and productive activities related to climate change, but they also have untapped potential as significant agents of change in mitigation and adaptation (Wester & Lama, 2019).

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) emerges as a promising way to ensure adequate food supplies for the growing population and meet the challenge of climate change (Totin et al., 2018). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FAO defines CSA as ‘agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances resilience, reduces greenhouse gases (GHG), and enhances achievement of national food security and development goals’ (FAO, 2012). Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) aims to address food insecurity and climate change by promoting approaches that increase agricultural production and income without depleting natural resources and vital ecosystems, encouraging resilience and climate change adaptation, and reducing GHG emissions (FAO, 2012). In addition to agricultural practices and technologies, CSA also includes improved natural resource management practices for land, soil, forestry and water (World Bank; FAO; IFAD, 2015). Climate-smart agriculture offers a wide range of technologies and practices, which we refer to as ‘Climate-smart agriculture approaches’. We use the classification as listed below to guide our inclusion criteria and draft and implement the search, adapted from Aggarwal et al. (2018), World Bank; FAO; IFAD (2015):

Water-smart: water harvesting and water management, community management of water, solar pumps

Studies suggest that agricultural investments through successive generations of climate-smart projects may increase agricultural productivity and mitigate climate change (Van den Ende & Dolfsma, 2005). Evidence suggests what climate-smart agricultural (CSA) options work best, where, why, and how (Aggarwal et al., 2018; FAO & Care, 2019). However, there seems to be a gap in evidence on whether CSA approaches are available, accessible, and able to make a difference for women farmers (Rosenstock et al., 2016; Schut et al., 2016; Totin et al., 2018). There seems to be a need to fill the gaps in evidence on the effectiveness of a range of standard agricultural interventions which may be used to promote CSA approaches to smallholder women farmers in LMICs. Against this background, this review will collect, critically appraise, and synthesise the evidence on the interventions used to promote CSA to empower and enhance the resilience of women farmers under climate-smart agriculture.

The intervention

In this review, we aim to include studies on interventions which may be used to support the adoption of CSA approaches by smallholder women farmers and not the impact of CSA approaches per se (Lopez-Avila et al., 2017):

Knowledge dissemination approaches such as social networking and peer learning (e.g., local champions), information and communication technologies (e.g., telephone, SMS, radio, television), group and individual training and demonstration (e.g., extension, demonstration plots, field days and schools).

These interventions may be based on different underlying principles and approaches. At one end of the spectrum, they may follow a top-down approach; for example, a transfer of technology extension approach is used to disseminate knowledge about improved agricultural practices. At the other end of the spectrum could be the suite of interventions built on local synergies and following participatory (bottom-up) and community-led development approaches. Such collaborative ventures may include not just agricultural producers and users of natural resources but everyone responsible for land/soil, water and biodiversity management, including those involved in natural resources governance at local and higher levels, including policymakers.

Interventions may also incorporate an overt emphasis on addressing gender inequalities in access to knowledge and control over resources among men and women in agriculture or allied activities. For example, Gender-Action Learning Systems (GALS) aim to address unequal social and gender relations and acknowledge men and women as interdependent partners in the household and community levels (Reemer & Makanza, 2015). Whether farmers can take up climate-smart agricultural approaches themselves may be affected by conventional gender roles and relations in agriculture. The gender division of labour in agriculture may shape the gendered uptake of CSA and perpetuate gendered inequalities in gendered roles in agriculture and access to and control over resources. It is thus thought key that priorities and preferences for adaptation are understood from a gender lens (Huyer & Partey, 2020), and access to climate information and CSA technologies equitable (Gumucio et al., 2020).

CSA interventions may be gender-accommodative or gender-transformative (Cole et al., 2020; Nelson & Huyer, 2016). Examples include: 1.

A gender accommodative approach recognises gender constraints but seeks to work ‘around’ these constraints to engage women rather than challenging the barriers that limit women's participation in or capacities to derive benefits from value chains (Interagency Gender Working Group [IGWG], 2017). For example, interventions to promote participation of women in land/soil, water and biodiversity management committees and gender-responsive planning and budgeting (accommodative).

How the intervention might work

The adoption of CSA approaches is based on the understanding that the farmers see an advantage or incentive in following these practices over the conventional agricultural practices. Their inclination to adopt these practices may also stem from knowledge or experience of the risks or shocks posed by climate change, and hence they may be willing to adapt CSA approaches. Climate-smart agricultural approaches such as direct seeded rice, zero-tillage machines, laser land levelling, and green manuring exhibit potential in reducing women's labour burden in agriculture. In fisheries and aquaculture, women are mostly engaged in low-paid and time-consuming onshore tasks, such as making nets, unloading t day's catch and fish smoking (FAO, 2010). Climate-smart approaches such as fish-smoking technology, the FTT-Thiaroye can help combat problems arising from traditional fish smoking such as food security and economic repercussions (relatively high post-harvest losses); and the environment (over use of fuelwood, and thus accelerated degradation of forest ecosystems, and air pollution due to harmful gas emissions) and health (prolonged exposure of processors to heat, smoke and toxic gases). The potential of CSA approaches goes beyond reducing women's drudgery and may enhance women's access and control over resources, mobility and linkages to markets and sustainability of land, water, soil and ecosystem. (Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2020).

Promotion of suitable climate-smart agricultural approach is context-specific and varies across sites owing to different agroclimatic conditions and variations in gendered roles and access to resources across multiple contexts. Their scale and implementation will also differ as per the context and design of a program. The CSA practices may be implemented at farm or landscape level (World Bank; FAO; IFAD, 2015). Most government and development organisations aim at covering a large proportion of the target population. In resource constrained contexts, however, a targeted approach, that identifies more vulnerable regions (hotspots) related to women in agriculture-poverty-climate risk also seems feasible (Chanana-Nag & Aggarwal, 2020; Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2020).

From the implementation perspective, there is evidence (Roudier et al., 2014) that participatory community-led development approaches, and effective collaboration and partnership with local groups and institutions may enhance the adoption rate of CSA practices by men and women. The groups and community-based institutions play an important role in overcoming constraints related to physical, financial and human capital.

The causal pathway through which interventions to promote CSA for land/soil, water, and biodiversity management can achieve the desired outcomes of enhancing resilience among women is shown in (Figure 1). Resilience may be described as ‘the capacity of systems, communities, households or individuals to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk and recover from shocks’ over a period. Adaptive capacity is central to resilience. Adaptive capacity comprises recovery from shocks and response to changes (FAO, 2014). The first step towards encouraging farmer communities to adopt CSA technologies is building awareness and sensitivity about the climate change risks and uncertainties and how those risks can be countered with preparedness of the system built on CSA practices. Knowledge dissemination approaches such as rural advisory services may thus provide knowledge and awareness about the appropriate climate-smart agricultural approaches (IRRI & CRISP, 2020). Depending on the level of engagement of the community, local solutions may also be incorporated to the suite of CSA approaches for land/soil, water and biodiversity management. For example, sustainable systems cannot be built on unleveled fields. GALS methodology and other gender transformative methodologies may help communities to identify unequal roles, relations and access and control over resources, uncovering gender inequalities in the process and conveying the message very clearly that men and women are interdependent partners for a sustainable change, and countering the unforeseen risks and uncertainties posed by climate change. The financial bottlenecks in the adoption of CSA approaches can be handled through providing microfinance or subsidies on inputs such as seeds or fertilisers. Crop insurance could also be used to help farmers manage risk of adoption of CSA approaches. Institutional arrangements such as land titling and community infrastructure projects (e.g., irrigation) may also help overcome barriers to adoption.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1

Logic model (Adapted from Lopez-Avila et al., 2017 and World Bank, IFAD and FAO, 2009).

The above-mentioned interventions may help foster uptake of context-appropriate CSA approaches. The use of appropriate approaches could subsequently lead to sustainable economic, social and environmental outcomes. Some consequences could include economic outcomes such as increased yields, incomes and consumption/food security, or social outcomes such as enhanced status, increased mobility, control over resources and ability to take decisions for sustainable agriculture that is able to absorb the shocks posed by climate change. There may also be implications for gendered burden of time, such as if CSA approaches are time-saving, or where women's household or community responsibilities increase, potentially increasing work time burdens. Natural resource sustainability occurs where land, soil, forestry, water and vital ecosystems are preserved. All these together shape the adaptive capacities of actors involved in the process and strengthen the resilience of those involved to counter climate change induced vulnerabilities.

Why it is important to do this review

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for climate action (SDG13), responsible consumption and production (SDG12), and the eradication of hunger (SDG2) and poverty (SDG1) are closely linked to climate smart approaches in agriculture, land, forestry and water management. IPCC third working group report (IPCC, 2021) highlights that agriculture sector provide second-largest share of mitigation potential from soil carbon management, improved rice cultivation and livestock and nutrient management, improved rice cultivation and livestock and nutrient management can provide 20-30% of 2050 the emission reduction. According to the World Bank (2017), many of the most important development challenges—such as slow growth and poverty—persist because of inequitable power relations which determine access to resources and public services. Efforts to address power imbalances in resource and public service access, are therefore likely to be important for sustainable and equitable development. One approach to help address imbalances in resource access is by empowering women in climate smart agricultural practices for land and, soil, water and biodiversity management. At the mid-point of the SDG period, decision makers urgently need access to systematically collected, critically appraised evidence about the effectiveness of development interventions. It is particularly important to understand what evidence exists on the effects of different approaches to boost resilience and sustainable development. These include intended outcomes and unintended (usually adverse) outcomes, such as effects on women's burden of time. This review aims to synthesise that evidence and present results transparently for decision-making.

A global evidence map has also been published of climate change adaptation initiatives including in agriculture (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). Systematic reviews exist or are planned on the effects of climate-smart agriculture technologies (Bui & Vu, 2020; Rosenstock et al., 2016). There are also completed reviews on interventions to promote uptake of agricultural technology among smallholders using top-down and bottom-up approaches (e.g., Korth et al., 2014; Waddington et al., 2014). In addition, systematic reviews have incorporated evidence on the effects of changing institutional arrangements such as contract farming (Ton et al., 2018) and reviews specifically examining effects on women farmers including farmer field schools (van den Berg et al., 2015; Waddington et al., 2014) and land reform (Lawry et al., 2017). Another review examines interventions to empower communities in natural resources governance (Waddington et al., 2019). Another systematic reviews examined the impact of aquaculture intervention on productivity, income, nutrition and women's empowerment (Gonzalez et al., 2021). However, we are not aware of any existing or planned systematic reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions promoting climate smart agriculture practices and natural resource management on adaptive capacity and resilience outcomes. We have drawn on relevant reviews in determining a suitable topic and identifying relevant studies, including a systematic map summarising the evidence on gender composition in forestry and fishery management groups (Leisher et al., 2016) and an evidence gap map on agricultural innovation (Lopez-Avila et al., 2017).

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Search methods for identification of studies

The electronic searches of selected databases will be accompanied by grey literature search using organisational websites. Systematic Review databases will also be searched. Hand searches of selected journals and articles will also be done.

Data collection and analysis

Dealing with missing data

Study authors will be contacted if we require additional data that is missing or incomplete. In case of non-availability/no response from authors, we will report the characteristics of the study but will not include such a study in the meta-analysis. Where studies do not report group sample sizes to calculate the standard error of the standardised mean difference, the following approximation will be used:

se ( d ) = √ ( 4 / N + d 2 / 2 N ) , $\mathrm{se}(d)=\surd (4/N+d^2/2N){,}$

where se(d) is the standard error of the standardised mean difference, d is the standardised mean difference and N is the total sample size.