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

Analysis and Programming

Alex De Pinto, IFPRI

December 15, 2017

SOMEBACKGROUND

Answer the needs of todaySupport long-term policies that can deal with the contingencies of changing climate regimesAddress these needs in a potentially very different environment

Agricultural development must meet multiple challenges

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).

Evidence on Gender and Climate Change

Men and women have different absorptive and adaptive capacityo 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)

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 outcomeso 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

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.

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

The Gender, Climate Change and Nutrition Integration Initiative (GCAN):

A Framework for Analysis and Programming

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

Bryan et al. 2017

Bryan et al. 2017

Bryan et al. 2017

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

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

SOME IMPLEMENTATIONEXAMPLES

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

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).

Nutrition profile

Priorities:

o Global Hunger Index 2016o 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 ageo Anemia in preschool-aged childreno Zinc deficiency in preschool-aged childreno Vit A deficiency in children and women

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.)

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

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

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.

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)

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 consumersSources: Global Panel (2016); Hauenstein Swan, S., and B. Vaitla(2007); Hendrix, C. (2016); Breisinger, C. et al. (2012)

Outcomes: Will CSA Close or Exacerbate Gender Inequalities?

Source: ILSSI baseline survey data

Source: Bryan et al. 2017. unpublished

COUNTRYIrrigators 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

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