Food Systems Summit Brief - Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
Scientific Group
https://sc-fss2021.org/
Food Systems Summit Brief
Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems
Summit, May 11th 2021
by Jemimah Njuki1, Sarah Eissler2, Hazel Malapit3, Ruth Meinzen-Dick3, Elizabeth Bryan3,
and Agnes Quisumbing3
Achieving gender equality and shaped and reinforced by contextual social
women’s empowerment in food systems gender norms, and on links between
can result in greater food security and women’s empowerment and maternal
better nutrition, and in more just, resilient, education and important outcomes, such
and sustainable food systems for all. This as nutrition and dietary diversity. However,
paper uses a scoping review to assess the evidence is limited on issues such as gender
current evidence on pathways between considerations in food systems for women
gender equality, women’s empowerment, in urban areas and in aquaculture value
and food systems. The paper uses an chains, best practices and effective
adaptation of the food systems framework pathways for engaging men in the process
to organize the evidence and identify of women’s empowerment in food
where evidence is strong, and where gaps systems, and for addressing issues related
remain. Results show strong evidence on to migration, crises, and indigenous food
women’s differing access to resources, systems. And while there are gender-
1
International Food Policy Research Institute, Africa Regional office c/o ILRI Nairobi
2
Independent consultant
3
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
1informed evaluation studies that examine despite many constraints and limitations
the effectiveness of gender- and nutrition- including lower access to opportunities,
sensitive agricultural programs, evidence technologies, finance and other productive
to indicate the long-term sustainability of resources, and weak tenure and resource
such impacts remains limited. The paper rights. These constraints and limitations
recommends keys areas for investment: are shaped and reinforced by social and
improving women’s leadership and structural inequalities in food systems.
decision-making in food systems, Stark gender inequalities are both a cause
promoting equal and positive gender and outcome of unsustainable food
norms, improving access to resources, and systems and unjust food access,
building cross-contextual research consumption, and production. In the
evidence on gender and food systems. agriculture sector, for example, evidence
shows that women have unequal access
Figure 1. Gendered Food Systems
Source: Adapted from de Brauw et al. (2019).
and, in some cases, unequal rights, to
important resources, such as land, water,
Women are key actors in food systems pasture, seeds, fertilizers, chemical inputs,
as producers, wage workers, processors, technology and information, and extension
traders, and consumers. They do this work and advisory services, which reduces their
potential to be productive in agriculture,
2become empowered to make strategic And as food systems are both contributors
decisions and act on those decisions, and to and impacted by climate change, nature-
realize their rights (Doss 2018; Meinzen- positive production schemes (production),
Dick et al. 2019; Mulema and Damtew such as sustainable agricultural
2016; Madzorera and Fawzi 2020). In intensification strategies, enable food
addition, compared with men, women are systems to reduce their contribution to and
more vulnerable to chronic food and mitigate the impacts of climate change,
nutrition insecurity as well as shock- thus strengthening resilience (drivers)
induced food insecurity (Madzorera and (Campbell et al. 2014).
Fawzi 2020; Theis et al. 2019). These three components of the food
system interact with gender equality
/inequality in a 4-dimensional space:
individual and systemic, formal and
We conceptualize gender as an informal. Transforming food systems in
important lever for progress across all equitable ways requires changes in gender
aspects of food systems (Figure 1) and equality at the individual and systemic
draw upon key terms and definitions of levels and at the formal and informal levels.
women’s empowerment, women’s Consciousness and awareness (individual;
economic empowerment, and gender- informal) are the changes that must occur
transformative approaches (see definitions in women’s and men’s consciousness,
in annex 1). Food system drivers are capacities, and behavior. Access to
anchored in a gendered system with resources and opportunities (individual,
structural gender inequalities and are formal) are the changes that must occur
shaped by shocks and vulnerabilities that with regard to one’s access to resources,
affect men and women in different ways. services, and opportunities. Informal
Structural gender inequalities and cultural norms and deep structure
gendered shocks and vulnerabilities thus (informal, systemic) are the changes that
influence the ways in which men and must occur in the deep structure and
women experience these drivers of food implicit norms and social values that
systems, which in turn shape the three undergird the way institutions operate,
main components of food systems: value often in invisible ways. Finally, formal
chains, the food environment, and policies, laws, and institutional
consumer behavior. arrangements (formal, systemic) are the
This conceptualization of gender in changes that must be made to policies and
food systems recognizes and highlights the laws in place to protect against social and
linkages and interconnectedness across gender discrimination and advance
these components of food systems—value equality (Gender at Work n.d.). Change
chains, food environments, and consumer must go beyond just reaching women
behavior. For example, strengthened through interventions and requires
access to nutritious foods (food facilitating the empowerment process so
environment) is an important source and that women can benefit from food system
pathway to strengthening individual and activities (that is, increasing wellbeing,
household resilience (drivers), particularly food security, income, and health) and can
as adverse effects of climate change will make and act upon strategic life decisions
continue to negatively influence access to
and consumption of diverse nutrient-rich
foods (Fanzo et al. 2018; Theis et al. 2019).
3within food systems.4 Women’s agency, relevant to agriculture or food systems.
differences in access to and control over Duplicate articles from across the searches
resources, gendered social norms, and were eliminated from the database. Finally,
existing policies and governance influence additional articles were identified for
how men and women can participate in inclusion from the citations in the articles
and benefit from food systems, leading to collected above. All collected articles were
differences in overall outcomes (Figure 1). managed in Zotero reference manager
software.5
This paper uses a scoping review
(Harris et al. 2021; Liverpool-Tassie et al. This section presents the main findings
2020) to assess the current evidence on of evidence relevant to the components of
gender issues in food systems. Given the the gendered food systems conceptual
broad range of key topics related to gender framework (Figure 1): drivers and cross-
in food systems, topically relevant and cutting levers, shocks and stressors, food
published systematic reviews were and value chains, food environment,
purposively sampled to provide a baseline consumer behavior, and outcomes.
state of the evidence. After purposively In general, the evidence reveals that
sampling and identifying 16 systematic and women are important actors and
scoping reviews to inform the baseline, contributors to food systems, but their
additional articles were collected. Three contributions are typically undervalued,
databases (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, unpaid, or overlooked in food systems
and IFPRI’s Ebrary) were used to gather and research. A 2021 map of food systems and
collect additional articles using key word nutrition evidence from 3ie indicates that
searches aligned with 42 unique terms although women have a major role in food
cross-referenced with the terms “gender” systems, relatively few studies have
and “women.” A total of 198 articles were examined strategies for or the
selected from these databases for review effectiveness of interventions aimed at
after meeting the following inclusion improving women’s decision-making
criteria: the articles must be empirical and power or have measured outcomes related
peer-reviewed, published in English, and to empowerment (Moore et al. 2021).
have a geographic focus in low- or middle- Many food system interventions have not
income countries (LMICs). The article also collected evidence regarding gender, an
must make an explicit reference to gender oversight that may result in poor outcomes
or women’s empowerment and the key or inefficient use of funds to improve food
thematic term. For articles meeting these systems (Moore et al. 2021).
initial criteria, additional criteria were used Overall, the literature is largely in
to exclude some from the review, including agreement as to how to advance gender
if the methodology was inadequate to equality and women’s empowerment in
account for biases, or if the article was not food systems but offers little evidence on
4
See Johnson et al. (2018) for a discussion of the Reach-Benefit-Empowerment framework.
5
All articles reviewed for this paper are compiled in a separate Excel database, with the following metrics
collected for each article: author(s) name, article title, year published, journal or organization of publication,
country focus (if specified), region focus, methods used, and main finding(s). Additional information on the
search methods and articles selected are included in the full review paper (citation forthcoming).
4causal pathways or mechanisms (Moore et schemes or group networks facilitates
al. 2021). The existing evidence, in general, broader access to resources and additional
offers locally or contextually specific social networks and types of social capital,
findings; limited evidence exists that which strengthen women’s capacity to
applies across contexts or at geographic respond to these events (Vibert 2016). For
scale.6 example, participation in community
groups and access to credit options have
Drivers: Shocks and Stressors been positively associated with uptake of
climate-smart agriculture practices and
Men and women are differently technologies in Mali (Ouédraogo et al.
exposed and vulnerable to shock and stress 2019).
events. As a result of social norms and Women have fewer adaptation
differing access to important resources, options than men, as social norms restrict
men and women have different capacities women’s mobility, freedom of movement,
to mitigate risk and respond to these and access to transportation, as do time
events (Mahajan 2017; Codjoe et al. 2012). burdens associated with domestic and care
The types of capacities needed include responsibilities (Jost et al. 2016; Naab and
absorptive, adaptive, and transformative Koranteng 2012; de Pinto et al. 2020).
capacities, which are built by developing However, de Pinto et al. (2020) note
and leveraging resources and networks to evidence that certain components of
reduce the risk of adverse impacts and to women’s empowerment led to increased
facilitate faster recovery from shock and crop diversification among small-scale
stress events. Gendered impacts of shocks agricultural producers in Bangladesh,
are nuanced, context specific, and often suggesting that women do play an
unexpected (Quisumbing et al. 2018; Rakib important and positive role in climate
and Matz 2014; Nielsen and Reenberg change adaptation. Access to context-
2010). Gendered perceptions of climate specific and relevant climate information
change and ensuing effects are based on and appropriate technologies is a key
livelihood activities and household and determinant of adopting climate change
community roles and responsibilities, and adaptation practices, and women and men
often influence how men and women can have different needs for and access to such
leverage adaptation strategies to respond information (see section below on
(Quisumbing et al. 2018; Aberman et al. Gendered Access to Services and
2015; Nielsen and Reenberg 2010). Technology) (Bryan et al. 2013; Tambo and
Many studies indicate that gender- Abdoulaye 2012; Twyman et al. 2014;
differentiated access to or ownership of Mudege et al. 2017).
important resources— such as women
having fewer assets and lacking access to Food System Components
information services or credit—is linked to
different capacities to mitigate, adapt to, Agrifood Value Chains
and recover from shock and stress events Women are actively engaged across
(Bryan et al. 2013; de Pinto et al. 2020; various roles in agricultural value chains,
Fisher and Carr 2015). However, women’s although women’s positions are typically
participation in collaborative farming undervalued and overlooked in food
6
The findings presented in this paper are high-level. Nuanced and further explanation of findings can be found
in the full review paper (citation forthcoming).
5systems research (Doss 2013). In Ethiopia, technologies (Theriault et al. 2017; Ndiritu
Abate (2017) found that women were et al. 2014; Grabowski et al. 2020;
predominately responsible for storage Farnworth et al. 2016; Meinzen-Dick et al.
preparation, postharvest processing, milk 2019; Doss et al. 2015; Perez et al. 2015;
processing, barn cleaning, care for Pradhan et al. 2019; Parks et al. 2014;
newborn livestock, cooking, grinding, Ayantunde et al. 2020; Khoza et al. 2020;
fetching, and collecting fuelwood, and Gathala et al. 2021; Mont and Luu 2018;
worked with men to weed, harvest, thresh, Beuchelt and Badstue 2013; Halbrendt et
and protect crops from wildlife. Qualitative al. 2014).
evidence from Benin suggests that women
are predominately engaged in agricultural Food Environment
processing activities and, if they have Several themes emerge from the
access to land, are engaged in production evidence linking gender equality and
activities as well (Eissler et al. 2021a). women’s empowerment with improving
Studies from Benin and Tanzania also availability and access to safe and
found that, regardless of the producer, nutritious food. First, the affordability of
men manage higher-value sales and nutritious food is an important issue for
marketing, while women only manage accessing nutrient-rich foods to advance
marketing and negotiation of small-value gender equality and women’s
sales (Eissler et al. 2021a; Mwaseba and empowerment. Available evidence
Kaarhus 2015). Gupta et al. (2017) provided indicates that women are less likely than
evidence that improving women’s market men to be able to afford a nutritious diet,
access is strongly correlated with increased as women often occupy lower-paying wage
levels of women’s empowerment in India. positions than men, earn and control
Agriculture both contributes to and is smaller incomes than men, have less
affected by anthropogenic climate change. autonomy over household financial
As population pressures continue to decisions, or have no income at all. For
increase and place demands on food example, Raghunathan et al. (2021)
production, agricultural livelihoods across estimated that while nutritious diets have
agrifood value chains must adapt become substantially more affordable for
approaches that will sustainably meet women and men wage workers in rural
rising demand, reduce risk associated with India, unskilled wage workers still cannot
adverse climatic events, and mitigate afford a nutritious diet; unskilled workers
contributions to climate change. Such account for approximately 80 to 90 percent
approaches include sustainable of female and 50 to 60 percent of male
intensification (Tilman et al. 2011; daily wage workers and affect 63 to 76
Rockström et al. 2017), conservation percent of poor rural children.
agriculture (Montt and Luu 2020), and Another important theme is ensuring
climate-smart and climate-resilient equitable access to markets where
agriculture (Gutierrez-Montes et al. 2020; nutritious foods can be purchased.
Duffy et al. 2020), among others. A growing Nutrient-dense foods, such as fruit, milk,
body of evidence indicates that women and vegetables, are hard to transport and
producers are less able to adopt such store, and therefore must be purchased
sustainable and resilient production locally, particularly in remote and rural
practices or methods given their limited areas (Hoddinott et al. 2015; Mulmi et al.
access to necessary resources, including 2016). Several articles linked women’s
land, time, labor, information, and mobility and freedom of movement to
6market access, and thus to positive diets are found to be more effective when
nutrition and food security outcomes. For they include components on nutrition and
example, Aryal et al. (2018) found that health behavior change communication,
physical distance to markets impacted women’s empowerment, water,
household food security outcomes for sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and
female-headed households more than for micronutrient-fortified products (Ruel et
male-headed households in Bhutan. Shroff al. 2019). Gelli et al. (2017) found
et al. (2011) found women’s low autonomy preliminary evidence that WASH
in mobility was positively associated with components of a nutrition-sensitive
wasting in children in India. The evidence agriculture intervention can mitigate the
seems to associate women’s limited potential harm, such as the health risks, of
mobility with stricter social gender norms introducing and enhancing small livestock
and religion. production in Burkina Faso. However, more
evidence is needed to understand best
Consumer Behavior practices for reducing potential harm of
increased livestock production and
Agriculture can influence diets and
management in nutrition-sensitive
dietary choices through the consumption
agricultural programs (Ruel et al. 2019).
of household-produced crops or increased
purchasing power derived from the sale of
Food System Outcomes
agricultural products. Moore et al. (2020)
found that in research since 2000, women’s
Recent research has examined the link
roles in food systems are mostly examined
between maternal mental health and
in terms of their role as consumers, such as
psychosocial indicators and nutrition
household cooks, or as mothers who are
outcomes. There is mixed evidence
breastfeeding or whose health affect that
regarding the link between maternal
of their children. Other studies link gender
depression and mental health symptoms
norms, roles, and responsibilities to
and child or household nutrition. Wemakor
women as food preparers and managers of
and Iddrisu (2018) found no association
household diet quality (Eissler et al. 2020a;
between maternal depression and child
Sraboni and Quisumbing 2018). Komatsu et
stunting in northern Ghana, whereas
al. (2018) found a positive association
Wemakor and Mensah (2016) and Anato et
between the amount of time women spent
al. (2020) found positive associations
on food preparation and household dietary
between women experiencing depressive
diversity, and Chaturvedi et al. (2016)
symptoms and child undernutrition in
found a positive association between the
Ghana and Ethiopia. Wemakor and Mensah
time mothers spent with their children and
(2016) observed that women experiencing
nutrition status.
the highest levels of depression were also
There is evidence showing positive
those with lowest incomes or from the
effects of nutrition counseling, nutrition
lowest-income households. Cetrone et al.
education, and maternal education for
(2021) found that food security
nutrition, dietary diversity, and health
improvements resulting from participation
outcomes for women and children
in a nutrition-sensitive agriculture program
(Choudhury et al. 2019; Atker et al. 2012;
mediated women’s depression symptoms
Kimambo et al. 2018; Reinbott and Jordan
in Tanzania. Such evidence, which is both
2016; Reinbott et al. 2016; Rakotomanana
et al. 2020; Ragasa et al. 2019). mixed and limited, suggests that further
studies are needed to understand the
Interventions for sustainable and nutritious
7psychosocial impacts of women’s finance and credit options compared with
empowerment and mental health on men (Adegbite et al. 2020; Ghosh and
household nutrition and health outcomes. Vinod 2017; Dawood et al. 2019; Kabir et al.
Evidence links access to resources and 2019). For example, Kabir et al. (2019)
empowerment to nutritional outcomes found that in Bangladesh, a lack of access
and children’s educational outcomes. For to credit is the most significant barrier
example, evidence indicates that women’s women producers faced, followed by lack
livestock ownership or production of need-based training, high interest rates,
diversity, combined with market access insufficient land access, and a lack of
and women’s empowerment, are quality of seeds. Women’s ability to earn
important drivers of diverse household incomes and participate in income-
consumption and nutritional status generating activities are strongly mediated
(Sibhatu et al. 2015; Mulmi et al. 2016; by restrictive gender norms, lack of access
Hodinott et al. 2015). Additionally, Malapit to resources, and time burdens arising
et al. (2018) found in Bangladesh that while from normative roles and responsibilities.
gaps in parental empowerment had only In a study of urban women vegetable
weak associations with children’s nutrition traders in Viet Nam, Kawarazuka et al.
status, mother’s empowerment is (2017) found that women were able to
positively associated with girls’ education work in less socially respected spaces, such
and keeping older children in school in as street trading, but still needed to
general. negotiate their access to informal
A growing body of research has employment spaces with their husbands.
examined the pathways through which Supporting women’s entrepreneur-
women’s empowerment is linked with ship is suggested as an important pathway
household nutrition outcomes and access to advancing gender equality and women’s
to nutritious foods (Alaofè et al. 2017; empowerment in food systems. Malapit et
Reinbott and Jordan 2016; Bellows et al. al. (2019) suggests that this is not
2020; Malapit and Quisumbing 2015; necessarily the case if these businesses are
Heckert et al. 2019; Lentz et al. 2021). small and home-based; such businesses
These pathways are contextual and vary typically make little profit and tend to add
across countries and regions (Na et al. to women’s existing time burdens. And in a
2015; Ruel et al. 2019; Quisumbing et al. systematic literature review, Wolf and
2020). Ruel et al. (2019) observe that while Frese (2018) emphasized the need to
the current evidence broadly associates recognize that spousal support is a key
women’s empowerment and nutrition factor for women’s entrepreneurship or
outcomes, this evidence is generally engagement in income-generating
context specific, given that women’s activities.
empowerment and gender roles and norms
are closely linked. As more evidence is
generated from cross-context evaluations,
future research can create typologies to
better explain how gender roles more
Gendered Social Norms and Expectations
broadly interact with nutrition-sensitive
agricultural interventions (Ruel et al. 2019). Social and cultural norms shape and
Specific to equitable livelihood reinforce the ways in which women and
outcomes, evidence indicates that women men can participate in, access, and benefit
face disproportionate barriers in accessing from opportunities and resources
8(Kristjianson et al. 2017; Meinzen-Dick et In rural agricultural settings, women may
al. 2019; Rao et al. 2017; Moosa and Tuana also provide household labor on their
2014). This has important consequences husbands’ agricultural plots in addition to
across all aspects of advancing women’s their domestic work yet are not
empowerment and gender equality in food remunerated for this labor (Picchioni et al.
systems. For example, norms can hinder 2020; Nahusenay 2017; Ghosh and Chopra
women’s ability to access or adopt new 2019). Recent evidence also suggests that
agricultural practices (Kiptot and Franzel patterns of male dominance in the
2012; Njuki et al. 2014). Importantly, household are linked to individuals’ gender
gender norms vary within contexts, such as norms but are not necessarily correlated
by religious identity or social class. with intergenerational transfers of male
Kruijssen et al. (2016) noted that different dominance in intrahousehold decision-
normative expectations of women in Hindu making (Leight 2021).
and Muslim communities influenced the
ways in which these women were Gendered Access to and Control over
constrained or enabled in participating in Resources, Services, and Technology
aquaculture value chains in Bangladesh. A large body of literature has
In general, women often experience examined differences in men’s and
restrictive social norms that hinder their women’s access to, ownership of, and
empowerment and full participation in control over resources in the food system
household or community activities and (Johnson et al. 2016; Uduji et al. 2019;
value chains (Huyer and Partey 2019; Perez et al. 2015; Gebre et al. 2019; Fisher
Kruijssen et al. 2018). In a review of and Carr 2015; Lambrecht and Mahrt
evidence on gender issues in global 2019). Evidence indicates that perceived or
aquaculture value chains, Kruijssen et al. effective ownership of resources may be
(2018) found that contextual gender norms more important than actual ownership for
shape the ways in which women and men women’s empowerment and nutrition
participate in aquaculture value chains outcomes (Eissler et al. 2020b). Studies
around the world, often limiting women’s have found positive associations between
ability to participate in and benefit from women’s land ownership and their
aquaculture value chains equally. participation in community groups or co-
Social gender norms are contextually operative networks, suggesting that access
and culturally specific and are strongly to important resources, such as land,
linked to women’s empowerment (Eissler facilitates access to other resources, such
et al. 2020a, 2020b, 2021a; Meinzen-Dick as increased bargaining power and pooled
et al. 2019; Bryan and Garner 2020). Emic assets. Further evidence indicates that
understandings of an empowered woman when women’s previously less-lucrative or
and an empowered man vary, but lower-valued activities begin to rise in
importantly inform the understanding of value or earn higher incomes, control over
cultural nuances and expectations of roles the activity or resource may be transferred
and responsibilities of women (Meinzen- from women to men (Mwaseba and
Dick et al. 2019; Bryan and Garner 2020). Kaarhus 2015).
Men are generally considered household Existing literature shows that women
financial providers and decision-makers, face social, cultural, and institutional
whereas women are responsible for barriers to accessing and adopting
domestic chores, childcare, food agricultural technologies, information, and
preparation, and other unpaid care tasks. services (Peterman et al. 2014; Peterman
9et al. 2011; Perez et al. 2015; Mudege et al. research to show how women may control
2015, 2017; Ragasa et al. 2013; de Pinto et their own time use or how interventions
al. 2020; Raghunathan et al. 2019; Duffy et can support women in managing their own
al. 2020). Men and women have different time in order to advance their strategic
needs for and access to such information choices in food systems.
and technologies; gender analyses are
therefore needed to tailor communication Women’s Agency: Decision-Making and
strategies to ensure that information and Leadership
dissemination are adequately targeted to
men and women (Tall et al. 2014; Peterman
et al. 2014; Diouf et al. 2019; Ragasa et al. Household Level
2013; Jost et al. 2016; Mudege et al. 2017; Evidence suggests positive
Duffy et al. 2020). Women have access to nutrition, livelihood, wellbeing, and
disproportionately less information than resilience outcomes when women are
men overall but do have access to more more involved and have greater influence
information regarding certain topics in household decision-making. Several
relevant to their gender-normative roles studies find that when women own or have
and responsibilities, such as postharvest joint title to land, they are significantly
handling and small livestock production more involved or have greater influence in
(Twyman et al. 2014). household decision-making, particularly
Gender-sensitive program designs that regarding agricultural or productive
aim to increase access to technologies have decisions (Wiig 2013; Mishra and Sam
positive impacts on women’s nutrition and 2016). And while Fisher and Carr (2015)
health outcomes (Kassie et al. 2020; Alaofè found that women farmers in Ghana and
et al. 2016, 2019). An evaluation of a Malawi were less likely to adopt drought-
gender-sensitive irrigation intervention in tolerant maize varieties due to differences
northern Benin found that women in the in resource access, women strongly
program had higher dietary diversity, influenced the adoption of drought-
increased intake of vegetables, decreased tolerant maize varieties on plots controlled
rates of anemia, higher body mass indexes by their husbands.
(BMI), and improved household nutritional
status through direct consumption as a Community Level
result of women’s increased crop
Diiro et al. (2018) found evidence that
diversification and women’s increased
increases in women’s empowerment,
income allowing them to make economic
including women’s participation in
decisions (Alaofè et al. 2016, 2019).
community leadership, is associated with
Interventions to benefit or empower
higher agricultural productivity; and
women may overlook the time trade-offs
women from more food-secure
required for women’s participation or for
households are more likely to participate in
intended outcomes (Picchioni et al. 2020;
community leadership roles. Niewoehner-
Komatsu et al. 2018; van den Bold et al.
Green et al. (2019) found that for women
2020). Importantly, measuring time use
in rural Honduras, social norms and
itself does not address women’s agency
structural biases hindered their
over their time use or the intrahousehold
participation in leadership positions in
decision-making surround-ing how and on
agricultural groups and limited their
what activities women may spend their
influence and voice in community
time (Eissler et al. 2021b). There is little
decisions. There is some evidence to
10suggest that men and women value and project-level Women’s Empowerment in
participate in different types of community Agriculture Index for Market Inclusion (pro-
groups. For example, women place a higher WEAI+MI) includes indicators on sexual
value on savings and credit groups than harassment and violence against women in
men and may have greater access to hyper- composite measurements of empower-
local institutions, whereas men have ment for women in agricultural value
greater access to institutions and services chains (Ragasa et al. 2021; Eissler et al.
from outside of their immediate 2021a), providing a tool to measure the
community (Cramer et al. 2016; Perez et al. incidence of GBV and its impact on
2015). Other evidence suggests that women’s empowerment in food systems.
women may participate in fewer groups Institutions and policies that support
than men (Mwongera et al. 2014). gender equality and women’s
empowerment in food systems are
Food Systems Level generally lacking in low-income countries
(Meinzen-Dick et al. 2013). Bryan et al.
Increasing women’s voices and
(2017) observed that a lack of policies and
integrating their preferences into
institutional capacity hinders research and
agricultural solutions, including technology
gender integration into climate change
design and implementation, is an under-
adaptation programs across a range of
researched pathway to empowerment and
contexts, specifically noting a lack of staff
gender equality in food systems. For
capacity on gender, lack of funding to
example, there is evidence that women
support gender integration, and
may have different preferences than men
sociocultural constraints as key barriers to
with regard to crop varietals (Gilligan et al.
gender integration. Some evidence
2020; Teeken et al. 2018), but there is
suggests a tension between formal
limited evidence that breeders’ consider
legislation and practiced law. Pradhan et al.
these preferences in varietal design and
(2019) found that in practice, women’s
profiles (Tufan et al. 2018; Marimo et al.
joint and personal property rights differ
2020).
from legal definitions. Eissler et al. (2021a)
observed that while Benin has formal
Institutional Barriers, Policy, and
gender equality and antidiscrimination
Governance
laws, these are poorly enforced and do not
The prevalence of gender-based align with social norms toward GBV or
violence (GBV) is a systemic barrier for harassment. For example, women working
women’s empowerment in food systems. in agricultural value chains often may not
There is extensive research in health report incidents of sexual harassment in
literature on GBV; however, research on the workplace for fear of upsetting their
violence against women in the context of husbands, suggesting that women may feel
food systems is limited. Some studies find a sense of responsibility for inviting the
evidence that women’s asset ownership harassment.
deters GBV, suggesting that when women
own assets, their status may increase,
making it easier for them to leave harmful
relationships (Grabe 2010; Grabe et al.
2015). Buller et al. (2018) and Lees et al.
(2020) found that cash transfer programs
decrease the incidence of GBV. The new
11pathways to improve women’s
empowerment and gender equality in food
This scoping review aimed to elucidate systems, but the actual evidence to
evidence and identify evidence gaps for support these pathways, specifically cross-
advancing gender equality and women’s contextual evidence, is limited. Existing
empowerment in food systems. We see evidence is extremely localized and
evidence that women have differing access context-specific, limiting its application
to resources compared with men, such as beyond the focus area of the study. And
essential services, knowledge and finally, relatively few studies included a
information, technology dissemination, gender-informed design and conceptual
land, credit options, time, and markets. framework to best understand
This differing level of access is shaped and mechanisms to promote equality and
reinforced by contextual social gender empowerment. Moving forward, further
norms. Existing evidence shows that research is required to produce stronger
context-specific pathways link women’s evidence on cross-contextual pathways to
empowerment to important outcomes, improve gender equality and women’s
such as household nutrition and dietary empowerment in food systems.
diversity, noting that these pathways may
vary between and within contexts. Cross-
contextual evidence exists of positive
associations between maternal education Invest in maternal education, particularly
(and specifically, access to nutrition nutrition-focused education and
education) and positive outcomes for child counselling.
and household nutrition and diet quality. Cross-contextual evidence indicates
While this review was not systematic, that maternal education and experiences
it appears that only limited studies address with nutrition counseling are positively
important areas of inquiry regarding associated with improved diet quality and
gender equality and women’s diversity, leading to better nutrition
empowerment in food systems. outcomes at the household level. For
Specifically, only a few studies included in example, Chudhury et al. (2019) found a
this review examined gender positive association of maternal education
considerations in food systems for women and maternal health, household dietary
in urban areas or aquaculture value chains. diversity, and nutrition and health
There have been few studies to understand outcomes for household members in 42
best practices and effective pathways for countries, suggesting that dietary diversity
engaging men in the process of women’s may be driven by preferences and
empowerment in food systems, or knowledge. In Tanzania, Kimambo et al.
addressing issues of migration, crises, or (2018) found positive associations
indigenous food systems. Additionally, between women’s nutrition knowledge
while there are gender-informed evalua- and consumption of African vegetables.
tion studies that examine effectiveness of Rakotomanana et al. (2020) found that, in
gender- and nutrition-sensitive agricultural Madagascar, children of mothers with
programs, there is limited evidence to knowledge and positive attitudes about
indicate the long-term sustainability of complementary nutrient-rich foods had
such impacts. more nutrient-diverse diets; and those
In conclusion, this review suggests with mothers who had lower incomes and
there is substantial agreement about greater time burdens had less nutrient-
12diverse diets. Studies also found benefits groups was positively associated with
from involving grandmothers in nutrition increased levels of information and
counseling, education, and dialogues in participation in some agricultural decisions
Sierra Leone (Aidam et al. 2020; but did not affect agricultural production or
MacDonald et al. 2019) and Nepal outcomes, possibly because of women’s
(Karmacharya et al. 2017). Investments limited time, financial constraints, or
should focus on increasing women’s restrictive social norms. At the systems
educational attainment coupled with level, there is limited evidence to suggest
nutrition-focused counseling. that technology development (including
crop breeding, for example) incorporates
Invest in programs/interventions that aim women’s different preferences and needs
to improve women’s influence and role in into design (Tufan et al. 2018; Marimo et al.
decision-making and leadership at all 2020). Investments should be made in
levels of the food system (household, interventions that address and facilitate
community, and systems). improvements for women’s influence and
participation in decision-making at all
Women’s influence and role in
levels.
decision-making is associated positively
with nutrition, women’s empowerment,
Invest in interventions that promote
and livelihood outcomes at all levels of
positive and equal gender norms at the
food systems. At the household level, in
household, community, and systems level.
northern Ghana, for example, women are
less likely to have decision-making Gender norms and associated
autonomy over productive decisions, expectations vary by context; however,
purchasing, selling or transferring assets, restrictive gender norms shape and, in
and speaking in public (Ragsdale et al. many ways, hinder women’s
2018). In Bangladesh, de Pinto et al. (2020) empowerment across contexts and limit
found that households have higher levels their ability to participate in and act upon
of crop diversification when women have strategic decisions or activities to advance
more influence in productive household their own empowerment across all
decision-making, suggesting that an components of food systems. For example,
increase in women’s bargaining power can a study in Egypt found that a woman’s
lead to more resilient agricultural normative role as an unpaid household
livelihoods. At the community level, caregiver limited her ability to sell fish
evidence indicates that women’s compared with her husband, who did not
participation in community groups also face time burdens associated with
enhances resilience, increases access to caregiving and who maintained decision-
important resources such as land or labor, making control over his and his wife’s
builds and facilitates social networks, and activities (Kantor and Kruijssen 2014). In
increases their influence and participation Papua New Guinea, Kosec et al. (2021)
in community-level decision-making found that men are more likely to support
(Kumar et al. 2019; Aberman et al. 2020). women challenging normative gender roles
For example, Kabeer (2017) found that in terms of their economic participation
women in Bangladesh who expand their during periods of household economic
active social networks through community stress because this can raise household
groups have higher levels of empower- income, not because they support
ment. Raghunathan et al. (2019) found that transforming women’s role in society more
Indian women’s participation in self-help generally. Contextual gender norms may
13also shape women’s food allocation agricultural work and children’s diet quality
preferences, which hold important varied with women’s asset poverty.
implications for nutrition. In Ethiopia, for Picchioni et al. (2020) found that in India
example, women may favor sons over and Nepal, women and men participate
daughters for more nutrient-dense foods equally in productive work that requires
(Coates et al. 2018). Sraboni and high levels of energy, but women shoulder
Quisumbing (2018) found that women’s most of the reproductive work at the
preferences in allocating nutritious foods expense of leisure opportunities. Van den
were influenced heavily by social norms in Bold et al. (2020) found that a nutrition-
Bangladesh, where women favored sons sensitive agricultural intervention in
over daughters because of male advantage Burkina Faso significantly increased the
in labor markets and property rights. time women spent on agriculture and led
Investments should be made to promote to improved maternal and child nutrition
positive and equal gender norms for and outcomes, and that women’s increased
with men and women across contexts and time spent on agriculture did not have
scales from the household to system levels. deleterious effects on their own or their
children’s nutrition. Investments should be
Invest in interventions and efforts that made to target improving women’s access
improve women’s access to important and to and control and ownership over such
necessary resources. resources to ensure they are able to
The evidence overwhelmingly effectively benefit from these resources.
indicates that across contexts women have
less access to important resources than Target research to yield more cross-
men. These resources include, but are not contextual evidence for advancing gender
limited to, land, agricultural inputs, equality and women’s empowerment in
financing options, financial services, food systems.
technology, technical services, and time. Finally, the overall outcome of this
Nuanced variations exist across and within review revealed that the current evidence
contexts. For example, in sub-Saharan on advancing women’s empowerment and
Africa, studies indicate that women may gender equality in food systems is locally
rely on informal sources of information, specific and linked to contextual gender
such as personal connections, whereas norms. Developing cross-contextual
men rely on formal sources of information, typologies can support development of
such as extension or the private sector; evidence that has broader application.
however, in Colombia, men may have more More targeted research is required to
access to information overall compared to identify patterns of successful and effective
women, but both rely on the same sources interventions and pathways to advance
of information (Twyman et al. 2014, 2016; women’s empowerment and gender
Mudege et al. 2017). With regard to time, equality in food systems with contextual
Komatsu et al. (2018) found that women’s norms. The outcome of such research
time allocation and household nutrition would be clear typologies that link
outcomes varied by local context, such that successful interventions and recommenda-
women’s time in domestic work was tions by gender norms.
positively associated with diverse diets in
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, Mozam-
bique, and Nepal, but in Mozambique, the
relation between women’s time in
14Alaofè, H., J. Burney, R. Naylor, and D.
Abate, N. 2018. “An Investigation of Taren. 2016. “Solar-Powered Drip
Gender Division of Labour: The Case of Irrigation Impacts on Crops Production
Delanta District, South Wollo Zone, Diversity and Dietary Diversity in
Ethiopia.” Journal of Agricultural Northern Benin.” Food and Nutrition
Extension and Rural Development 9(9): Bulletin 37(2): 164–75.
207–214. Alaofè, H., J. Burney, R. Naylor, and D.
Aberman, N., S. Ali, J. Behrman, E. Bryan, P. Taren. 2016. “The Impact of a Solar
Davis, A. Donnelly, V. Gathaara, D. Kone, Market Garden Programme on Dietary
T. Nganga, J. Ngugi, B. Okoba, and C. Diversity, Women’s Nutritional Status
Roncoli. 2015. “Climate Change and Micronutrient Levels in Kalalé
Adaptation Assets and Group-Based District of Northern Benin.” 2019. Public
Approaches: Gendered Perceptions Health Nutrition 22(14): 2670–2681.
from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mali, and Anato, A., K. Baye, Z. Tafese, and B.J.
Kenya.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01412, Stoecker. 2020. “Maternal Depression Is
International Food Policy Research Associated with Child Undernutrition: A
Institute, Washington, DC. Cross-Sectional Study in Ethiopia.”
Aberman, N., R. Birner, E. Auma Okiri Maternal & Child Nutrition 16(3):
Odoyo, M. Oyunga, B. Okoba, and G. e12934.
Okello. 2020. “Gender-Inclusive Aryal, J.P., D.B. Rahut, K.A. Mottaleb, and
Governance of ‘Self-Help’ Groups in A. Ali. 2019. “Gender and Household
Rural Kenya.” IFPRI Discussion Paper Energy Choice Using Exogenous
01986, International Food Policy Switching Treatment Regression:
Research Institute, Washington, DC. Evidence from Bhutan.” Environmental
Adegbite, O., and C. Machethe. 2020. Development 30 (June): 61–75.
“Bridging the Financial Inclusion Gender Ayantunde, A.A., B.O. Oluwatosin, V.
Gap in Smallholder Agriculture in Yameogo, and M. van Wijk. 2020.
Nigeria: An Untapped Potential for “Perceived Benefits, Constraints and
Sustainable Development.” World Determinants of Sustainable
Development 127(March): 104755. Intensification of Mixed Crop and
Aidam, B., C. MacDonald, R. Wee, J. Simba, Livestock Systems in the Sahelian Zone
J. Aubel, K. Reinsma, and A. Girard. of Burkina Faso.” International Journal
2020. “An Innovative Grandmother- of Agricultural Sustainability 18(1): 84–
Inclusive Approach for Addressing 98.
Suboptimal Infant and Young Child Bellows, A.L., C.R. Canavan, M.M. Blakstad,
Feeding Practices in Sierra Leone.” D. Mosha, R.A. Noor, P. Webb, J. Kinabo,
Current Developments in Nutrition H. Masanja, and W.W. Fawzi. “The
4(12): nzaa174. Relationship Between Dietary Diversity
Akter, R., N. Yagi, H. Sugino, S.H. Thilsted, S. Among Women of Reproductive Age
Ghosh, S. Gurung, K. Heneveld, R. and Agricultural Diversity in Rural
Shrestha, and P. Webb. 2020. Tanzania.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin
“Household Engagement in Both 41(1): 50–60.
Aquaculture and Horticulture Is Beuchelt, T.D., and L. Badstue. 2013.
Associated with Higher Diet Quality than “Gender, Nutrition- and Climate-Smart
Either Alone.” Nutrients 12(9): 2705. Food Production: Opportunities and
Trade-Offs.” Food Security 5(5): 709–21.
15Van den Bold, M., L. Bliznashka, G. Ramani, Intervention Reduces Women’s Risk of
D. Olney, A. Quisumbing, A. Probable Depression through
Pedehombga, and M. Ouedraogo. 2021. Improvements in Food Security in
“Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Singida, Tanzania.” Current
Programme Impacts on Time Use and Developments in Nutrition
Associations with Nutrition Outcomes.” 4(Supplement 2): 819–819.
Maternal & Child Nutrition 17(2): Chaturvedi, S., S. Ramji, N.K. Arora, S.
e13104. Rewal, R. Dasgupta, and V. Deshmukh.
Bryan, E., C. Ringler, B. Okoba, C. Roncoli, S. 2016. “Time-Constrained Mother and
Silvestri, and M. Herrero. 2013. Expanding Market: Emerging Model of
“Adapting Agriculture to Climate under-Nutrition in India.” BMC Public
Change in Kenya: Household Strategies Health 16(July): 632.
and Determinants.” Journal of Choudhury, S., B. Shankar, L.
Environmental Management Aleksandrowicz, M. Tak, R. Green, F.
114(January): 26–35. Harris, P. Scheelbeek, and A. Dangour.
Bryan, E., and E. Garner. 2020. “What Does 2020. “What Underlies Inadequate and
Empowerment Mean to Women in Unequal Fruit and Vegetable
Northern Ghana? Insights from Consumption in India? An Exploratory
Research around a Small-Scale Irrigation Analysis.” Global Food Security 24
Intervention.” IFPRI Discussion Paper (March): 100332.
01909, International Food Policy Coates, J., B.N. Patenaude, B.L. Rogers, A.C.
Research Institute, Washington, DC. Roba, Y.K. Woldetensay, A.F. Tilahun,
Bryan, E., Q. Bernier, M. Espinal, and C. and K.L. Spielman. 2018. “Intra-
Ringler. 2018. “Making Climate Change Household Nutrient Inequity in Rural
Adaptation Programmes in Sub-Saharan Ethiopia.” Food Policy 81(December):
Africa More Gender Responsive: 82–94.
Insights from Implementing Codjoe, S., L. Atidoh, and V. Burkett. 2012.
Organizations on the Barriers and “Gender and Occupational Perspectives
Opportunities.” Climate and on Adaptation to Climate Extremes in
Development 10(5): 417–31. the Afram Plains of Ghana.” Climatic
Buller, A.M., A. Peterman, M. Change 110(1): 431–454.
Ranganathan, A. Bleile, M. Hidrobo, and Cramer, L., W. Förch, I. Mutie, and P.K.
L. Heise. 2018. “A Mixed-Method Thornton. 2016. “Connecting Women,
Review of Cash Transfers and Intimate Connecting Men: How Communities and
Partner Violence in Low- and Middle- Organizations Interact to Strengthen
Income Countries.” The World Bank Adaptive Capacity and Food Security in
Research Observer 33(2): 218–58. the Face of Climate Change.” Gender,
Campbell, B., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Technology and Development 20(2):
van Asten, and L. Lipper. 2014. 169–99.
“Sustainable Intensification: What Is Its Dawood, T.C., H. Pratama, R. Masbar, and
Role in Climate Smart Agriculture?” R. Effendi. 2019. “Does Financial
Current Opinion in Environmental Inclusion Alleviate Household Poverty?
Sustainability 8(October): 39–43. Empirical Evidence from Indonesia.”
Cetrone, H., M. Santoso, L. Petito, R. Economics & Sociology 12(2): 235–52.
Bezner-Kerr, L. Blacker, N. Kassim, E. De Brauw, A., M. van den Berg, I. Brouwer,
Mtinda, H. Martin, and S. Young. 2020. H. Snoek, R. Vignola, M. Melesse, G.
“A Participatory Agroecological Lochetti, C. van Wagenberg, M. Lundy,
16E. d’Hotel, and R. Ruben. 2019. “Food Duffy, C., G. Toth, J. Cullinan, U. Murray,
System Innovations for Healthier Diets and C. Spillane. 2020. “Climate Smart
in Low and Middle-Income Countries.” Agriculture Extension: Gender
IFPRI Discussion Paper 01816, Disparities in Agroforestry Knowledge
International Food Policy Research Acquisition.” Climate and Development
Institute, Washington, DC. 13(January): 1–13.
De Pinto, A., G. Seymour, E. Bryan, and P. Eissler, S., A. Diatta, J. Heckert, and C.
Bhandari. 2020. “Women’s Nordhen. 2021a. “A Qualitative
Empowerment and Farmland Assessment of a Gender-Sensitive
Allocations in Bangladesh: Evidence of a Agricultural Training Program in Benin:
Possible Pathway to Crop Findings on Program Experience and
Diversification.” Climatic Change 163(2): Women’s Empowerment across Key
1025–43. Agricultural Value Chains.” IFPRI
Diiro, G.M., G. Seymour, M. Kassie, G. Discussion Paper 02005, International
Muricho, and B.W. Muriithi. 2018. Food Policy Research Institute,
“Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Washington, DC.
and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence Eissler, S., J. Heckert, E. Myers, G. Seymour,
from Rural Maize Farmer Households in S. Sinharoy, and K.M. Yount. 2021b.
Western Kenya.” PLOS ONE 13(5): “Exploring Gendered Experiences of
e0197995. Time-Use Agency in Benin, Malawi, and
Diouf, N.S., I. Ouedraogo, R.B. Zougmoré, Nigeria as a New Concept to Measure
M. Ouedraogo, S.T. Partey, and T. Women’s Empowerment.” IFPRI
Gumucio. 2019. “Factors Influencing Discussion Paper 02003, International
Gendered Access to Climate Food Policy Research Institute,
Information Services for Farming in Washington, DC.
Senegal.” Gender, Technology and Eissler, S., A. Sanou, J. Heckert, E.C. Myers,
Development 23(2): 93–110. S. Nignan, E. Thio, L.A. Pitropia, R.
Doss, C. 2018. “Women and Agricultural Ganaba, A. Pedehombga, and A. Gelli.
Productivity: Reframing the Issues.” 2020a. “Gender Dynamics, Women’s
Development Policy Review 36(1): 35– Empowerment, and Diets: Qualitative
50. Findings from an Impact Evaluation of a
Doss, C. 2013. “Intrahousehold Bargaining Nutrition-Sensitive Poultry Value Chain
and Resource Allocation in Developing Intervention in Burkina Faso.” IFPRI
Countries1.” The World Bank Research Discussion Paper 01913, International
Observer 28(1): 52–78. Food Policy Research Institute,
Doss, C., C. Kovarik, A. Peterman, A. Washington, DC.
Quisumbing, and M. van den Bold. 2015. Eissler, S., A. Sanou, J. Heckert, E.C. Myers,
“Gender Inequalities in Ownership and S. Nignan, E. Thio, L.A. Pitropia, R.
Control of Land in Africa: Myth and Ganaba, A. Pedehombga, and A. Gelli.
Reality.” Agricultural Economics 46(3) 2020b. “Gendered Participation in
403–434. Poultry Value Chains: Qualitative
Doss, C.R., C.D. Deere, A.D. Oduro, H. Findings from an Impact Evaluation of a
Swaminathan, Z. Catanzarite, and J.Y. Nutrition-Sensitive Poultry Value Chain
Suchitra. 2019. “Gendered Paths to Intervention in Burkina Faso.” IFPRI
Asset Accumulation? Markets, Savings, Discussion Paper 01928, International
and Credit in Developing Countries.” Food Policy Research Institute,
Feminist Economics 25(2): 36–66. Washington, DC.
17Fanzo, J., C. Davis, R. McLaren, and J. https://genderatwork.org/analytical-
Choufani. 2018. “The Effect of Climate framework/
Change across Food Systems: Ghosh, A., and D. Chopra. 2019. “Paid
Implications for Nutrition Outcomes.” Work, Unpaid Care Work and Women’s
Global Food Security 18(September): Empowerment in Nepal.” Contemporary
12–19. South Asia 27(4): 471–85.
Farnworth, C.R., F. Baudron, J.A. Ghosh, S., and D. Vinod. 2017. “What
Andersson, M. Misiko, L. Badstue, and Constrains Financial Inclusion for
C.M. Stirling. 2016. “Gender and Women? Evidence from Indian Micro
Conservation Agriculture in East and Data.” World Development 92(April):
Southern Africa: Towards a Research 60–81.
Agenda.” International Journal of Gilligan, D., N. Kumar, S. McNiven, J.
Agricultural Sustainability 14(2): 142– Meenakshi, and A. Quisumbing. 2020.
65. “Bargaining Power, Decision Making,
Fisher, M., and E. Carr. 2015. “The and Biofortification: The Role of Gender
Influence of Gendered Roles and in Adoption of Orange Sweet Potato in
Responsibilities on the Adoption of Uganda.” Food Policy 95 (June): 101909.
Technologies That Mitigate Drought Grabe, S. 2010. “Promoting Gender
Risk: The Case of Drought-Tolerant Equality: The Role of Ideology, Power,
Maize Seed in Eastern Uganda.” Global and Control in the Link Between Land
Environmental Change 35(November): Ownership and Violence in Nicaragua.”
82–92. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Gathala, M.K., A.M. Laing, T.P. Tiwari, J. Policy 10(1): 146–70.
Timsina, F. Rola-Rubzen, S. Islam, S. Grabe, S., R. Grose, and A. Dutt. 2014.
Maharjan, et al. 2021. “Improving “Women’s Land Ownership and
Smallholder Farmers’ Gross Margins and Relationship Power: A Mixed Methods
Labor-Use Efficiency across a Range of Approach to Understanding Structural
Cropping Systems in the Eastern Inequities and Violence against
Gangetic Plains.” World Development Women”. Psychology of Women
138 (February): 105266. Quarterly 39(1): 7–19.
Gebre, G.G., H. Isoda, D.B. Rahut, Y. Grabowski, P.P., I. Djenontin, L. Zulu, J.
Amekawa, and H. Nomura. 2019. Kamoto, J. Kampanje-Phiri, A. Darkwah,
“Gender Differences in Agricultural I. Egyir, and G. Fischer. 2020. “Gender-
Productivity: Evidence from Maize Farm and Youth-Sensitive Data Collection
Households in Southern Ethiopia.” Tools to Support Decision Making for
GeoJournal 86(November): 843–864. Inclusive Sustainable Agricultural
Gelli, A., E. Becquey, R. Ganaba, D. Headey, Intensification.” International Journal of
M. Hidrobo, L. Huybregts, H. Verhoef, R. Agricultural Sustainability.
Kenfack, S. Zongouri, and H. Guedenet. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.202
2017. “Improving Diets and Nutrition 0.1817656
through an Integrated Poultry Value Gutierrez-Montes, I., M. Arguedas, F.
Chain and Nutrition Intervention Ramirez-Aguero, L. Mercado, and J.
(SELEVER) in Burkina Faso: Study Sellare. 2020. “Contributing to the
Protocol for a Randomized Trial.” Trials Construction of a Framework for
18(1): 412. Improved Gender Integration into
Gender at Work. n.d. “Gender at Work Climate-Smart Agriculture Projects
Framework.” Monitoring and Evaluation: MAP-
18You can also read
