Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary examines the contributions of agricultural extension programs and CSA interventions in improving resilience and empowerment among women farmers in LMICs, focusing on their effectiveness and challenges.
What evidence is this summary based on?
The summary is based on two systematic reviews:
Acosta, S. L. (2024). The Impact of Agricultural Extension Programs on Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture and Food Systems in the Global South: A Systematic Review. University of California, Davis. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9pv1j7hh
Saran, A., Singh, S., Gupta, N., et al. (2024). Interventions Promoting Resilience Through Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices for Women Farmers: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20:e1426. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1426
Main findings
Extension programs and climate-smart agriculture (CSA) interventions have played a key role in increasing women farmers’ knowledge and adoption of climate-resilient practices, including integrated pest management, stress-tolerant crops, and water conservation. Approaches such as participatory training, video-mediated learning, and farmer field schools tailored to women’s needs have proven effective, yielding moderate improvements in knowledge (SMD: 0.30) and adoption (SMD: 0.25). However, systemic barriers—such as unequal land rights, entrenched socio-cultural norms, and limited access to financial resources—continue to restrict women’s full participation and long-term engagement. Reviews by Acosta (2024) and Saran (2024) highlight the transformative potential of well-designed extension and CSA interventions to strengthen women’s resilience and decision-making agency in LMICs, while also addressing access challenges through targeted support like stress-tolerant crop distribution and participatory planning. Still, both reviews stress that these initiatives must be gender-responsive and supported by institutional reforms to overcome deep-rooted inequalities. The lack of sex-disaggregated data and rigorous long-term evaluations remains a key gap in understanding the sustained, gender-specific impacts of these programs.
1. Key finding
Overall
CSA interventions improve women farmers’ knowledge of and adoption of climate-resilient agricultural practices, though evidence on long-term outcomes and specific benefits to women is limited.
Women and girls-related
Targeted interventions, such as farmer field schools and weather information services, enhance women’s adoption of CSA practices. However, systemic barriers, including cultural norms and resource inequities, persist, limiting widespread impact.
2. Short summary
This systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions promoting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), focusing on their impact on women farmers. Based on eight impact evaluations, the analysis highlights how knowledge dissemination approaches, such as farmer field schools and video-mediated learning, improve farmers’ understanding and adoption of CSA practices like climate-resilient crop varieties and water management techniques.
Interventions targeting women farmers often incorporate participatory planning and gender-responsive approaches to address specific barriers, such as limited access to land and financial resources. While some programs successfully enhanced women’s adoption of CSA practices, such as botanical pesticides and stress-tolerant rice varieties, the evidence base remains constrained by methodological limitations and the lack of sex-disaggregated data.
Key challenges include entrenched socio-cultural norms, time constraints from household responsibilities, and insufficient access to financial incentives, which hinder the scalability and long-term sustainability of CSA adoption. The review emphasizes the need for gender-sensitive approaches, improved institutional arrangements, and robust policy frameworks to address these barriers and enhance the resilience of women farmers.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women and men farmers in LMICs, focusing on rural, smallholder farmers.
Intervention: CSA interventions such as farmer field schools, climate-resilient seed distribution, and weather information services.
Comparison: No CSA intervention or traditional agricultural practices.
Outcome: Increased adoption of CSA practices, improved knowledge, and sustainable agricultural productivity.
Study design: Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies.
3.2 Risk of bias
Five of the eight studies had high risks of bias, mainly due to selection bias, where intervention and comparison groups were not adequately randomized or matched. Incomplete outcome reporting was another issue, with some studies failing to present all measured results. Additional concerns included small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, and limited use of sex-disaggregated data, which restricted the ability to assess specific impacts on women.
3.3 Publication bias
The review notes no clear evidence of publication bias for knowledge and adoption outcomes, as effect sizes did not correlate with increased standard errors. However, the small sample sizes across studies, particularly for outcomes like disadoption, limit the ability to reliably assess publication bias.
3.4 Findings
CSA interventions in LMICs focus on improving resilience by enhancing women farmers’ knowledge and adoption of climate-resilient agricultural practices. Knowledge dissemination methods, such as farmer field schools, participatory training, and video-mediated learning, have been effective in increasing awareness and adoption of practices like integrated pest management, efficient water use, and the cultivation of stress-tolerant crop varieties, including rice. These approaches are particularly impactful when they incorporate locally relevant content and gender-responsive methodologies.
Gender-focused strategies, such as ensuring equitable representation in training programs and designing interventions to address literacy barriers, show potential in overcoming women’s unique challenges. However, systemic barriers, including restricted land tenure rights, deeply entrenched socio-cultural norms, and inadequate access to financial and institutional support, continue to limit the broader scalability and effectiveness of these initiatives.
Effectiveness varies across interventions, with moderate improvements in knowledge outcomes (SMD: 0.30) and smaller but positive effects on adoption rates (SMD: 0.25). However, the lack of gender-disaggregated data and limited evaluation of long-term impacts constrain the ability to fully understand the transformative potential of these interventions.
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) | 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 | 8 |
| Gender | 42 |
| Women | 72 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
Agricultural extension programs have a significant role in empowering women through improved access to resources, decision-making, and agricultural productivity. However, many programs lack a gender-responsive design, limiting their transformative potential.
Women and girls-related
Empowerment outcomes include enhanced access to climate-resilient inputs, skills training, and increased agency in household and farming decisions. Yet, poorly designed programs may unintentionally reinforce existing inequities or overburden women with additional labor demands.
2. Short summary
This review explores the impact of agricultural extension programs on women’s empowerment in agriculture and food systems in the Global South. Drawing on 90 studies, it examines three dimensions of empowerment: resources, agency, and achievements. Women in rural areas face significant barriers, including limited access to land, inputs, and financial resources, as well as socio-cultural norms that restrict their participation in extension activities.
Effective programs incorporate tailored approaches such as women-led groups, participatory planning, and tools like on-farm demonstrations. Addressing gender-specific needs, including literacy challenges and unequal labor distribution, leads to measurable improvements in women’s decision-making abilities and agricultural productivity. However, poorly designed interventions risk exacerbating inequalities by ignoring women’s roles or increasing their workload.
Gender considerations are crucial in the design and implementation of these programs. Structural changes, such as securing land tenure rights for women and ensuring their inclusion in decision-making, are essential to optimize the benefits of agricultural extension initiatives. Additionally, further research is required to evaluate long-term impacts and to ensure that these programs promote equitable and sustainable empowerment.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Rural women farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.
Intervention: Gender-responsive agricultural extension programs including training, participatory planning, and ICT-based solutions.
Outcome: Increased access to agricultural resources, enhanced decision-making capacity, and sustainable productivity improvements.
Study design: Systematic review using qualitative and quantitative data sources.
3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Agricultural extension programs significantly contribute to women’s empowerment by improving access to agricultural inputs and decision-making processes. Programs that emphasize participatory approaches and community-driven training models are more effective in achieving empowerment outcomes. For example, on-farm demonstrations and peer-led initiatives improve adoption rates of sustainable farming practices. ICT-based tools, such as mobile apps and radio programs, are particularly effective in bridging information gaps for women with limited mobility or literacy challenges.
Despite these successes, the review identifies persistent barriers to empowerment. Cultural norms and systemic inequalities restrict women’s participation in extension programs, often limiting their ability to access resources such as land, credit, and technology. Additionally, some programs unintentionally reinforce gender roles or increase women’s labor burdens without addressing structural inequities.
The need for gender-responsive policies that integrate women into program design and decision-making structures is highlighted. Long-term evaluations are necessary to assess the sustainability of these programs and their impacts on women’s socio-economic status and agricultural productivity.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis – Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the 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? | 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? | No | |
| 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) | High |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 1 |
| Gender | 39 |
| Women | 80 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
