Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary evaluates the role of social protection policies, including crop insurance and cash transfer programs, in mitigating climate risks for women farmers and safeguarding their livelihoods. It examines how these policies address vulnerabilities arising from climate-sensitive livelihoods and gender disparities.
What evidence is this summary based on?
The summary is based on two systematic reviews:
Nelson, V. (2011). Gender, Generations, Social Protection & Climate Change: A Thematic Review. Overseas Development Institute. https://odi.org/en/publications/gender-generations-social-protection-climate-change-a-thematic-review/
Lwamba, E., et al. (2022). Strengthening Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality in Fragile Contexts Towards Peaceful and Inclusive Societies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18:e1214. https://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cl2
Main findings
Social protection policies like crop insurance and cash transfer programs are essential tools for supporting women farmers in addressing climate-induced vulnerabilities. These programs provide economic safety nets, enhance women’s access to financial services, and enable adaptive responses to climate variability. For example, cash transfers and Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) have been effective in improving women’s access to credit, financial stability, and asset ownership. Community-driven initiatives foster economic empowerment by integrating financial support with participatory planning. However, both reviews emphasize that deeply entrenched societal norms and gender inequities limit the broader effectiveness of these interventions.
Nelson (2011) highlights the importance of integrating adaptive social protection strategies that combine disaster risk reduction with climate adaptation. These strategies are most effective when tailored to address women’s unique vulnerabilities, such as restricted land rights and unequal access to financial resources. Lwamba (2022) highlights how social protection policies can drive empowerment through leadership opportunities and governance participation, particularly in fragile contexts. Programs that incorporate women’s voices into decision-making processes tend to produce more equitable outcomes. However, gaps in representation and inadequate inclusion of gender-sensitive perspectives remain pervasive, undermining the transformative potential of these policies. Both reviews stress the need for targeted and context-specific designs that address structural barriers and cultural resistance, ensuring that interventions safeguard women farmers’ livelihoods and enhance resilience effectively.
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, with marginalized groups such as women, children, and the elderly disproportionately vulnerable to its impacts. Emerging evidence supports integrating social protection and gender-sensitive approaches to adaptation and resilience-building.
Women and girls-related
Women, particularly those in female-headed households, are disproportionately affected due to their reliance on climate-sensitive resources, limited participation in decision-making, and entrenched gender inequalities. Despite these challenges, women can act as agents of change in climate adaptation processes when given adequate support.
2. Short summary
This review explores the intersections of gender, social differentiation, and climate change, focusing on marginalized groups’ vulnerabilities and capacities. Women, children, and the elderly are highlighted as particularly at risk due to systemic inequalities and reliance on climate-sensitive resources. The review critiques the lack of gender-sensitive analysis in climate change policy and adaptation strategies, emphasizing the need for social protection mechanisms that account for social and economic disparities. It also identifies emerging concepts, such as adaptive social protection, to bridge gaps between disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and social equity. The findings advocate for inclusive policies that empower marginalized groups as active agents of change.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Marginalized groups, particularly women, children, and the elderly, in the Global South.
Intervention: Social protection measures, disaster risk reduction, and gender-sensitive climate adaptation strategies.
Outcomes: Enhanced resilience, reduced vulnerability, and equitable participation in climate change responses.
Study design: Thematic review and annotated bibliography of 121 studies.
3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed
3.4 Findings
In many marginalized communities, women’s livelihoods are closely tied to climate-sensitive resources such as water, fuelwood, and agricultural products, making them particularly vulnerable to climate impacts. Systemic barriers such as restricted land ownership and limited access to financial resources like credit further deepen their economic insecurity. Female-headed households face even greater risks due to fewer economic opportunities and reduced access to productive assets. While social protection measures like cash transfers and food aid are essential for climate resilience, many programs fail to address gender disparities, resulting in unequal benefits. Adaptive social protection strategies that combine climate adaptation with traditional support systems offer promise but must be specifically designed to meet women’s needs. Women’s underrepresentation in climate policy and decision-making restricts the inclusion of gender-sensitive strategies, as most frameworks lack mechanisms to reflect the gendered impacts of climate change. However, women’s active participation in community-based adaptation efforts—such as disaster preparedness and water management—shows their capacity to lead and strengthen resilience. Policy frameworks that support women’s leadership and build their capacity are crucial to enhancing community-level climate adaptation.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis – Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | No | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | N.A | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | No | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | N.A | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | N.A | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | N.A | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | No | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Low |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 70 |
| Women | 13 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
Interventions aimed at strengthening women’s empowerment in fragile contexts show positive effects on economic empowerment, governance participation, and targeted outcomes. However, broader behavioral changes and the impact on entrenched social norms, such as IPV reduction, are less consistent. Gaps remain in evidence from regions like MENA and Latin America.
Women and girls-related
Women-focused interventions, such as cash transfers, education, and community-driven initiatives, significantly enhance economic empowerment, asset ownership, and governance representation. However, persistent gender norms limit their impact on broader societal and household-level changes. Addressing these norms is critical for sustained progress.
2. Short summary
This review synthesizes evidence on gender-specific and transformative interventions aimed at improving women’s empowerment and gender equality in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Drawing from 104 studies across diverse geographies, the review evaluates interventions like cash transfers, education programs, and community-driven development projects. These interventions generally showed positive effects on targeted outcomes, particularly in economic and political empowerment. However, changes further along the causal chain, such as attitudes towards IPV and decision-making within households, were less pronounced. Notably, a significant portion of studies highlighted the role of entrenched gender norms as barriers to long-term change. Recommendations underscore the importance of designing interventions that address underlying social norms and tailoring strategies to local contexts. The evidence base shows geographical and methodological gaps, indicating the need for broader and more rigorous research.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women and girls in fragile and conflict-affected settings.
Intervention: Gender-specific and transformative programs (e.g., financial inclusion, vocational training).
Comparison: Standard practices or alternative interventions.
Outcomes: Women’s empowerment, gender equality, peacebuilding contributions.
Study design: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies.
3.2 Risk of bias – 28% of included studies were identified as high risk, especially among quasi-experimental designs.
3.3 Publication bias–Potential biases due to underrepresentation of studies from key regions like MENA and Latin America.
3.4 Findings
Economic interventions such as asset and cash transfers yielded the strongest impacts on women’s access to and ownership of resources—assets, credit, and income—with effect sizes ranging from 0.20 to 0.45 standard deviations (SD), depending on context. Village savings and loan associations (VSLAs) and institutional financial inclusion programs improved women’s use of banking services by approximately 0.30 SD, while life skills and vocational training interventions enhanced economic participation and independence with effect sizes between 0.25 and 0.40 SD. Community-driven development programs significantly boosted women’s involvement in local governance, averaging 0.35 SD in indicators like council representation and decision-making. Civic education and leadership programs, including quota-based initiatives, showed moderate effects (0.20–0.30 SD) in increasing women’s influence in governance. In contrast, changes in social norms, particularly attitudes toward intimate partner violence (IPV), were minimal (<0.10 SD), and household decision-making outcomes showed small, inconsistent improvements (0.05–0.15 SD). Among all interventions, only self-help groups showed a statistically significant reduction in IPV, with an effect size of around 0.20 SD, highlighting the difficulty of shifting entrenched gender norms and behaviors.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the meta-analysis results by removing studies one-by-one and high-risk bias studies, then comparing outcomes. Outliers and influential studies were identified using studentized residuals (for deviation from predicted effect sizes) and Cook’s distances (based on influence within the model). These metrics followed Bonferroni corrections and interquartile-based thresholds for rigor.
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | Yes | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | Yes | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | Yes | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | Yes | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | No | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Yes | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | High |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 19 |
| Gender | 93 |
| Women | 280 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
