GENDER Impact Platform CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 APRIL 2023 Beyond crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development By Marlène Elias, Haley Zaremba, Katie Tavenner, Catherine Ragasa, Ana Maria Paez Valencia, Afrina Choudhury and Nicoline de Haan Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 1 This publication is copyrighted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). © FAO, 2023. It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) license. To view this license, visit https://creativecommons.org /licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform and build upon the material), under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by FAO, CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform or the author(s). ISBN: 92-9146-775-8 Citation: Elias, M., Zaremba, H., Tavenner, K., Ragasa, C., Paez Valencia, A.M., Choudhury, A., and de Haan, N. 2023. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #012. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129708. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Patricia Kristjanson, Hellen Amuguni, Lauren Philips, Benjamin Davis, Erdgin Mane, Susan Kaaria, Vanya Slavchevska, Libor Stloukal, Valentina Costa and Mariola Acosta for inputs along the way and valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. We gratefully acknowledge Avni Mishra and Niyati Singaraju for their research assistance, Sarah Cole for copyediting, and Sophia Braddel for her help with referencing. Els Lecoutere provided invaluable guidance throughout the process, and Linda Etale co-organized the review process. The CGIAR Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) Impact Platform is grateful for the support of CGIAR Trust Fund Contributors (www.cgiar.org/funders) and in particular wishes to thank the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for supporting this work (https://www. fao.org/home/en). ABOUT THIS SERIES This working paper, produced by the CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform, is one in a series of analytical working papers by our researchers. They were produced to inform the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to write the 2023 report on the Status of Rural Women in Agri-food Systems.* These evidence-based papers address key themes important for gender and social equality, and women’s empowerment in agriculture and food systems. They each discuss: • current status and emerging thinking • the theme’s relevance for transformative change toward more inclusive food systems • the evolution of equality in agriculture and food systems over the past 10 years in low- and middle-income countries • what has proved effective to ease structural constraints, and promote equality and empowerment • specific suggestions about interventions, programs and policies that can help make agriculture and food systems more inclusive. COVER PHOTO CREDIT: ILRI/Zerihun Sewunet. A woman farmer benefits from an improved feed management system introduced by IPMS. ABOUT CGIAR GENDER IMPACT PLATFORM Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) is CGIAR’s impact platform designed to put gender equality at the forefront of global agricultural research for development. The Platform is transforming the way gender research is done, both within and beyond CGIAR, to kick- start a process of genuine change toward greater gender equality and better lives for smallholder farmers everywhere. gender.cgiar.org. * FAO. 2023. The Status of Women in Agri-food Systems. Rome. 2 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 DISCLAIMER This working paper has gone through a process of nonblinded peer review by two reviewers external to the CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform, and has also been reviewed by the FAO team working on the 2023 FAO report on the Status of Rural Women in Agri-food Systems. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations nor of the CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. CONTACT Marlène Elias, Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), marlene.elias@cgiar.org (Corresponding author) Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 3 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #012 APRIL 2023 Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development Marlène Elias Ana Maria Paez Valencia Alliance of Bioversity International Alliance of Bioversity and the International Center International and the for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) International Center for marlene.elias@cgiar.org Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) a.paez-valencia@cgiar.org Haley Zaremba Alliance of Bioversity International Afrina Choudhury and the International Center for WorldFish Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) a.choudhury@cgiar.org h.zaremba@cgiar.org Nicoline de Haan Katie Tavenner CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Independent gender consultant n.dehaan@cgiar.org tavenka05@gmail.com Catherine Ragasa International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) c.ragasa@cgiar.org 4 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract v 1. Introduction 1 2. New lenses on gender in aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock 2 3. Gender matters in aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock sectors 4 4. Gender gaps in the aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock sectors 5 4.1 Forestry 5 4.2 Fisheries and aquaculture 9 4.3 Livestock 12 5. Strategies and initiatives to close the gender gap 15 5.1 Agency 15 5.2 Access to and control over resources 16 5.3 Social norms 16 5.4 Policies and governance 17 6. The promise of closing the gender gap 24 7. Key policy messages and recommendations 25 References 27 Annex and glossary (available online) 46 iv CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Abstract The fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and livestock sectors are critical for sustaining rural livelihoods and achieving food and nutrition security around the world. Yet each of these sectors produces and sustains important gender and other social inequalities, hindering people who rely on these livelihood systems from achieving their full potential. Drawing on Njuki et al.’s (2021) Gendered Food Systems framework, we examine gender gaps in relation to each sector, their implications for achieving multiple food system outcomes, what has worked to reduce inequalities, and the potential these sectors hold for advancing gender equality as an outcome in itself. We demonstrate that, despite specificities across sectors, similar gender barriers limit the benefits women receive from fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and livestock. These constraints, which occur at multiple levels, include: the invisibility and undervaluation of rural women’s labor and their disproportionately heavy labor burdens, limited and precarious control over resources, norms that hinder women’s voice and influence in decision-making and governance, and exclusionary institutions such as resource-user groups and extension and data systems. We demonstrate that, to achieve transformative change in food systems, changes are required in women’s agency, access to and control over resources, gender norms, and policies and governance. Such changes can improve dietary outcomes, gender equality and women’s empowerment, economic and livelihood outcomes, and environmental outcomes. To conclude, we argue that closing gender gaps across these sectors requires multipronged strategies that simultaneously engage these four change pathways to lift structural barriers to inequality. Keywords: gender equality, social equality, women’s empowerment, food systems, transformation, fisheries, livestock, aquaculture, forestry Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development v 1. Introduction Fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and livestock are critical to for sustaining rural livelihoods and achieving food and nutrition security around the world. Approximately one-third of the global population, and over 90 percent of people living in extreme poverty—including Indigenous Peoples, ethnic minorities, landless farmers, and others in vulnerable situations— have a close dependence on forests for food, fodder, shelter, energy, medicine, income, and more (FAO and UNEP 2020). Furthermore, agroforestry is practiced by almost a third of rural smallholders (Miller, Muñoz-Mora and Christiaensen 2017) on 43 percent of the world’s agricultural lands (Zomer et al. 2014). In 2017, fish represented almost 20 percent of the average animal protein intake and essential micronutrients for 3.3 billion people; and 800 million people, many of them among the poorest and most marginalized, relied on income from aquatic food value chains (FAO 2020a). The livestock sector plays an essential role in maintaining livelihoods and reducing poverty for 1.7 billion people globally, providing income to some 60 percent of rural households, and contributing up to half of agricultural GDP (World Bank 2021a, 5). Each of these sectors is highly gendered in terms of division of labor, rights to access and control resources and assets, decision-making and benefits. The characteristics of each sector and the contexts within which they are embedded have implications for gender equality and other food system outcomes. The invisibility and lack of value given to the knowledge, labor, and skills of the women, Indigenous Peoples, and socioeconomically marginalized groups engaged in these livelihood systems limit their capacity to participate as legitimate actors in decision-making in matters of resource use, processing and trade, management and governance at multiple scales. Consequently, the benefits they receive in these sectors are limited. In contrast, the full, effective and equitable participation of these groups can increase equality and improve resource management, economic and dietary outcomes. Drawing on the Njuki et al. (2021) Gendered Food Systems framework (figure 1), this paper examines gender issues in relation to each sector, their implications for achieving multiple food system outcomes, and the potential these sectors hold for advancing gender equality as an outcome in itself. Specifically, we discuss: (a) why and how roles, access to, participation in and benefits from forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock are constrained by gender norms and relations; (b) the status of gender gaps in these sectors; and (c) what has proven effective in reducing these gaps. We focus on the structural gender inequalities that are (re)produced in aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock value chains (figure 1)—issues related to the food environment and consumer behavior are treated in other companion papers of this report. To structure our analysis, we examine different pathways toward empowerment and gender equality that align with the four quadrants of change (types and areas of change) presented in figure 11 —namely, changes in: 1. women’s agency, through enhanced individual capacities, leadership, voice and influence 2. access to and control over resources, including women’s improved control over assets, income and information 3. gendered social norms, by challenging discriminatory beliefs and traditions 4. policies and governance, toward gender-just laws, policies and regulations 1. Njuki et al. (2021) cite the Gender at Work (n.d.) framework as a reference for these quadrants of change; and the Gender at Work framework draws from Rao and Kelleher (2005), who adapted it from Wilber (1999). Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 1 Findings from each sector are used as evidence for these pathways, and to demonstrate how removing gender inequalities can be a lever for change toward the four food system outcomes presented in figure 1: (i) dietary outcomes, (ii) gender equality and women’s empowerment, (iii) economic and livelihood outcomes, and (iv) environmental outcomes. To conclude, we argue that closing gender gaps across the sectors requires multipronged strategies that simultaneously engage these four pathways to lift structural barriers to equality. Figure 1. Gendered Food Systems framework. Source: Njuki et al. (2021, 2) 2. New lenses on gender in aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock We situate our gender analysis amid several advances in the field of gender in agriculture since 2011. First, there has been a call for intersectional approaches that capture how gender interacts with other social factors to produce differential experiences, inequalities and outcomes (Colfer, Sijapati Basnett and Ihalainen 2018; Tavenner and Crane 2019; Acosta et al. 2022). Challenges to binary thinking are also reflected in an evolution in understanding and in ways of measuring gendered decision-making, knowledge, and asset ownership in relation to agriculture (e.g., the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) (Alkire et al. 2013)). This evolution has moved toward a continuum of nuanced and interdependent 2 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 processes that may be separate, shared or overlapping among spouses and among other household members (Acosta et al. 2020; Bernard et al. 2020). Likewise, a more sophisticated treatment of access, control, and ownership of resources has illuminated the importance of different perceptions about and types of rights to resources (e.g., Galiè et al. 2015 on livestock, Pehou et al. 2020 on nontimber forest products (NTFPs)), and their implications for socioeconomically marginalized groups. Movement from commodity-focused production to value chains embedded in food systems (figure 1) has also placed gender relations under a new lens. Gender-responsive value chain development considers: relationships among heterogeneous actors within value chain segments (or nodes) and across segments (Stein and Barron 2017; Stoian et al. 2018); women’s entry into higher-return value chains and activities; and potential tensions between value chain activities, and women’s domestic and reproductive responsibilities. Analytical frameworks and quantitative and qualitative tools for analyzing gendered value chains have been developed and applied in various countries (Kruijssen et al. 2021). Such analyses move beyond numbers to consider quality of participation—including aspects related to women’s voice and influence over resources, their management, and governance (Elmhirst et al. 2017; Ihalainen et al. 2021). Importantly, the fifth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 5), (“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”) has helped to elevate gender equality and women’s empowerment from purely instrumental goals to ends in their own right. Correspondingly, new measures of empowerment in relation to agriculture (Elias et al. 2021a; Quisumbing et al. 2023), fisheries (the Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries Index (WEFI) (Ragsdale et al. 2022)) and livestock (Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) (Galiè et al. 2019a) are offering comparable and multidimensional indicators of women’s empowerment—along with qualitative components (Kruijssen and Newton 2022)—to track progress toward those goals. Innovative qualitative methods such as Photovoice (Simmance et al. 2021), intergenerational life history narratives (Tsikata and Darkwah 2014) and case study methodologies (FAO 2017; Sari et al. 2017; Choudhury et al. 2017) are also being used to understand different dimensions of empowerment. In research and practice, increasing emphasis has also been placed on understanding and addressing the underlying (systemic) causes of gender inequality (e.g., norms, formal structures) rather than focusing merely on the symptoms of inequality (McDougall et al. 2021; Njuki et al. 2021). Case studies and global comparative qualitative analyses have demonstrated the importance of gender norms in shaping agricultural innovation processes (Badstue et al. 2018; Badstue et al. 2020). Resting on this understanding, gender-transformative approaches (GTAs) that encourage local women and men to critically reflect on and challenge discriminatory gender norms have gained traction amid agricultural interventions (Lecoutere et al. 2022). Relatedly, rather than single solutions, efforts are being made to develop suites of complementary interventions to tackle the root causes of gender inequality and other ‘wicked problems’ in food systems (e.g., Nikolakis and Innes 2020; Haysom et al. 2019). These perspectives underpin our analysis. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 3 3. Gender matters in aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock sectors The advances described above foster a more sophisticated understanding of gender in agriculture that supports relevant policymaking and programs. Here, we give evidence for the relevance of addressing gender in the forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock sectors by highlighting some of the multidirectional links between gender equality and other sectoral outcomes, focusing on the four system outcomes presented in figure 1. Improving gender equality in the management of trees on farms by integrating women’s priority tree species can lead to more biodiversity and enhanced ecological services (Prabhu et al. 2015), improved household nutrition, and more balanced diets (Vinceti et al. 2013; Ickowitz et al. 2014; Jamnadass et al. 2015). Women’s participation in resource-user groups has also been linked to improved forest management outcomes (Leisher et al. 2016), whereas women’s exclusion and gender inequality have hindered adoption of sustainable practices and sustainability schemes (Pham et al. 2016; Larson et al. 2018). Aspects related to women’s empowerment (e.g., control over land, agency and access to information) have been linked to household adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices related to trees (Gumucio et al. 2019). Participation in forest, tree and agroforestry value chains can grant women economic and political opportunities and autonomy by increasing their income, social capital and other resources (e.g., Gumucio et al. 2018; Ihalainen et al. 2021). Women make up 19 percent of the workforce in aquaculture, 12 percent of the global workforce in capture fisheries, and about half of those engaged in small-scale fisheries (FAO 2020a). Up to 10 percent of the global population is dependent on fisheries for their livelihoods, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are especially dependent on small- scale fisheries, which are historically overlooked but account for 50 percent of total catch (FAO 2020a). The landed value of the catch by women in small-scale fisheries is estimated at US$5.6 billion (± 1.5 billion) per year, with an economic impact of US$14.8 billion (± 4 billion) per year (Harper et al. 2020). Failing to engage women as innovators, entrepreneurs, and managers thus undermines a more dynamic, productive and remunerative fisheries sector (Adam et al. 2021). Initiatives supporting women’s capacities in the sector have generated improved food security and development outcomes, and reduced postharvest losses (Harper et al. 2013; Cole et al. 2020). Moreover, greater gender equality in user groups related to fisheries and mangroves has been linked to improved management and governance (Leisher et al. 2016; IUCN 2017). Livestock development provides tremendous potential opportunities for increasing gender equality and women’s empowerment, given that women represent an estimated two-thirds (over 1.13 billion) of the world’s 1.7 billion livestock keepers (World Bank 2021a). Women’s active engagement in livestock value chains and equitable access to support and animal healthcare can improve animal health and livestock productivity (Omondi et al. 2022); give opportunities to increase women’s agency at the intrahousehold and community levels (Bullock and Tegbaru 2019); and enhance gender equality in decision-making, division of labor and control over assets (Johnson et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2017; Bain, Ransom and Halimatusa’diyah 2020). Gender-responsive livestock development has been linked to positive dietary outcomes, including enhanced diversification of household consumption and nutritional status (Gitungwa et al. 2021; Price et al. 2018), positive environmental outcomes through restoration of landscapes (ICRAF 2020) and mitigation of climate change (Farnworth 2015), 4 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 and economic and livelihood outcomes via income diversification and market participation (Kristjanson et al. 2014; Quisumbing et al. 2015). Additionally, because women-controlled livestock species (commonly poultry, rabbits, pigs, and goats) tend to require lower levels of initial inputs than larger scale agricultural and livestock activities, livestock development in these subsectors presents excellent opportunities for increasing incomes and accumulating assets for the world’s poorest people, including those from remote (Serra et al. 2022), pastoralist (Flintan 2021), and marginalized ethnic/caste communities (Ravichandran, Rozel Farnworth and Galiè 2021). 4. Gender gaps in the aquaculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock sectors 4.1 Forestry Kristjanson et al. (2019) identify 16 types of gender gaps that should be addressed to increase gender equality in forest settings,2 noting that many of the constraints women face also apply to other socioeconomically marginalized groups. Yet, globally, national forestry laws and policies are largely silent on gender issues or merely provide a statement referring to women’s needs (Jhaveri 2020). Likewise, gender and social inclusion issues are often ignored in forestry programs and projects, such as those focused on payments for ecosystem services, climate mitigation or forest landscape restoration (de Siqueira et al. 2021; Elias et al. 2023). The inadequacy of qualitative and quantitative data on gender in forestry (Asher and Varley 2018)—particularly from a longitudinal and intersectional perspective—complicates efforts to track change in gender relations over time. Nonetheless, the trends described below should be understood as dynamic, as new income-earning opportunities, formal education, migration, climate change, land-use change, crises such as COVID-19, and other factors drive change in forest landscapes (de Pryck et al. 2018; Hecht et al. 2015; Elias et al. 2021b). 4.1.1 Gender roles According to FAO’s (2020b) Global Forest Resources Assessment, in 2015 the total number of employees in forestry and logging in 71 countries that reported gender-disaggregated data was estimated at 3.88 million, of whom 58 percent were men and 42 percent were women.3 However, this is considered a massive underestimate (Lippe, Cui and Schweinl 2021) because much of the trade and use of forest products, and particularly of NTFPs, is informal— subsistence-oriented, unregulated, unreported and unaccounted for (FAO 2020b). 2. These are gender gaps related to: participation, leadership, tree- and land-tenure rights, forest use, division of labor and workloads, skills, ecological knowledge, access to technology and inputs, access to information, access to benefits, control over project benefits and income, access to credit, access to markets, access to employment opportunities, and policy engagement. 3. These figures include the production of roundwood for manufacturing industries, the collection and extraction of NTFPs, timber, and products that require little processing, such as fuelwood, charcoal and wood chips. The figures exclude employment in forest-based manufacturing industries. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 5 Gender norms underpin the division of labor in forestry and agroforestry. In their multicountry analysis, Sunderland et al. (2014) substantiate what numerous studies and reviews have demonstrated (Sun et al. 2011; Souto and Ticktin 2012; Stloukal et al. 2013; Faridah et al. 2017): strong gender specialization in the gathering and processing of most forest product categories, and relatedly, gendered knowledge systems.4 For instance, women in Asia and Africa are primary knowledge-holders and gatherers of edible wild plants (Müller, Boubacar and Guimbo 2015; Kimanzu et al. 2021), whereas men dominate hunting, timber harvesting and logging (Sunderland et al. 2014; World Bank 2021b), which are associated with masculinity (Colfer 2021). Yet, global patterns of forest use mask important regional variations. For instance, women are the main collectors of fuelwood in Asia and Africa, whereas men dominate this collection in Latin America (Sunderland et al. 2014). Similarly, a systematic review of data from Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America shows that gender-based patterns in knowledge of medicinal plants, which are linked to gender roles in plant collection and use, vary with scale (national, continental or global) (Torres-Avilez, Medeiros and Albuquerque 2016). Myriad studies show women’s close association with medicinal plants (da Costa, Monteiro Guimarães and Braga Messias 2021)—and at national and continental scales, gender-based patterns in ethnobotanical knowledge are observed in both directions (with women or men holding more knowledge, depending on the context) (Torres-Avilez, Medeiros and Albuquerque 2016). Yet, these differences are not significant at a global scale (Torres-Avilez, Medeiros and Albuquerque 2016). Gender differences in the collection of forest products are influenced by factors such as the physical demands of the task (climbing trees, heavy lifting, etc.) and where forest products are collected—with social norms underpinning the acceptability of collection by different groups of people (Ingram et al. 2016). Rural men’s (generally) greater access to transport (bicycles, motorcycles, carts, horses or trucks) allows them to canvass larger forest areas than women (Kiptot 2015; Elias and Arora-Jonsson 2017). Furthermore, norms and taboos restrict women’s movements into certain forest areas due to concerns for their safety (Colfer, Elias, and Jamnadass 2015) and their need to remain near the home to fulfill their socially ascribed domestic responsibilities (Agarwal 2001, 2002; Sunderland et al. 2014). In their global review of gender relating to forest, tree and agroforestry value chains, Ingram et al. (2016) found a dearth of information on women’s and men’s participation in the processing and trading stages of forest product value chains, particularly in Asia and Latin America. They note, however, that available data point to women’s dominance in both stages. Women are particularly overrepresented in the small-scale NTFP trade, whereas in the studies reviewed, men ran most larger businesses (Ingram et al. 2016). 4.1.2 Access to and control over assets and resources Over the past two decades, tenure reforms worldwide have devolved forest rights to Indigenous and local communities (Agrawal, Chhatre and Hardin 2008; Larson and Dahal 2012; RRI 2018). Yet, in 2018, more than 70 percent of forestlands—much of which is claimed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities—remained under the legal and administrative authority of governments (RRI 2018). Even when collective tenure is legally recognized, social inequalities influence the capacities of Indigenous and forest-dependent people to secure their forest rights (Banana et al. 2012; Bose 2013; Narváez Guerrero 2014; Bose et al. 2017; Rosman Hernández 2017; Larson et al. 2018). Rural women’s access to and control over land and trees are customarily mediated by their relationship with men (e.g., a husband, father or uncle), and are more limited than their male counterparts’ (Mwangi, Meinzen-Dick and Sun 2011; Colfer, Sijapati Basnett and Elias 2016; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2019). Given tenure insecurities, rural women are often prohibited from planting trees, as this can be considered a claim to land (Kiptot and Franzel 2012; Colfer et 4. Sunderland et al. (2014) categorize forest products as: firewood, charcoal, food (plants and mushrooms), structural and fiber, medicine, resins and dyes, food (animals), fodder and manure, and others. 6 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 al. 2017). Limited control over their own land contributes to the heavy reliance on forests for women and landless households (FAO and UNEP 2020). Gender intersects with other social factors, such as marital and residence status, to shape who can plant, harvest or fell trees. For example, in some Peruvian communities, widows or divorced women may lose rights to extract Brazil nuts from community forests (Monterroso et al. 2019). In Burkina Faso, rights to access néré (Parkia biglobosa) products follow a hierarchy based on women’s lineage, order of marriage (in polygamous households), and migrant or resident status (Pehou et al. 2020). In an analysis of Indigenous and rural women’s community-based tenure rights to forests in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI 2017) found that only 10 percent of the 80 community-based tenure rights analyzed had gender-sensitive provisions for inheritance.5 Although variations occurred, national laws and regulations on inheritance, community membership, community-level governance, and community-level dispute resolution were consistently unjust and fell below the requirements of international laws and standards, such as those enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Moreover, even when legal provisions support women’s tenure rights, customary restrictions commonly prohibit women’s ability to secure these rights (Tebtebba 2018; Kristjanson et al. 2019).6 As noted earlier, limited access to other types of assets, such as means of transport, also hinder the ability of women and poorer groups to access the forest and transport its products. Lack of access to complementary resources and services, such as credit and extension services ( et al. 2022), further limit their capacity to engage in more remunerative tree-based enterprises (Martini et al. 2011; Catacutan and Naz 2015; Davis, Franzel and Spielman 2019). 4.1.3 Decision-making Despite reforms devolving forest rights to local communities (FAO 2016a), the voice and influence of communities over their forest resources remain questionable (RRI 2014; FAO 2016b). Within communities, too, collective resource management institutions reinforce power inequalities and (re)produce exclusions based on gender, caste or landlessness (Beck and Nesmith 2001; Agarwal 2010; Chomba, Treue and Sinclair 2015; Astuti and McGregor 2016; Sijapati Basnett 2016; Maukonen, Donn and Snook 2020). In most forest contexts, patriarchal and gerontocratic (roughly, ‘rule by elders’) norms limit the voice of women and young people in forest governance (Agarwal 2002; 2010; IFAD 2016). Limited claims to land and forest products, time poverty, scarce access to information and to influential social networks, mobility constraints, and a lack of value given to their work and knowledge about the forest contribute to women’s exclusion from public spaces and decision-making (Agarwal 2001; Sunderland et al. 2014; Stiem and Krause 2016). Women’s participation in decision-making processes is greater, however, where education levels are higher and there is less income inequality (Coleman and Mwangi 2015). Normative constraints additionally hinder women’s representation in higher level government and policymaking institutions mediating forest governance (Bandiaky-Badji 2011; Pham et al. 2016), including forest agencies (Colfer 2021; Kristjanson et al. 2019). Sunderland et al. (2014) note significant disparities in women’s and men’s participation in formal forest-user groups. Women’s participation is highest in Africa, followed by Asia and finally Latin America—but women in about half of the households interviewed did not participate in forest-user group meetings at all. Even when women and socially marginalized groups are formally represented in forest-user groups and their committees, they often lack 5. Community-based tenure rights refer to the “set of national, state-issued laws and regulations governing ‘all situations under which the right to own or manage terrestrial natural resources is held at the community level’” (RRI 2017, p7). These community-based tenure rights more closely mediate Indigenous and rural women’s interactions with forests than national laws (RRI 2017). 6. Women are also globally underrepresented in forestry research, which is considered a masculine discipline (Macinnis-Ng and Zhao 2022). Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 7 influence over decision-making processes (Agarwal 2001; Baynes et al. 2015), including those related to market-based community conservation schemes, such as Reducing Emissions) from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) (Larson et al. 2015; Larson et al. 2018; Sarmiento Barletti, Hewlett and Larson 2019; Kristjanson 2020). Despite these challenges, women find ways to exercise agency and influence forest- and tree-management decisions. For example, some form of consultation or negotiation among spouses usually guides decisions to plant or selectively retain trees on smallholder farms in Kenya (Crossland et al. 2021) and Burkina Faso (Elias 2015). Grassroots women’s groups have also long been involved in forest conservation and tree-planting initiatives, and are increasingly recognized as key stakeholders (RRI 2018; Jahveri 2020; Killian and Hyle 2020) as women’s federations, forestry federations, and local women and men champions advocate for the need to address gendered power relations in forest tenure reforms (Jhaveri 2020). Women are also gaining new opportunities to participate in community-based governance and forestry in some landscapes experiencing high rates of male outmigration (Giri and Darnhofer 2010a). Yet, such gains are fragile because return migration can reinstate previous decision-making patterns (Hecht et al. 2015), at the same time as other gendered barriers to accessing credit, extension, and information continue to hinder rural women’s opportunities (Quisumbing, Meinzen-Dick and Njuki 2019). 4.1.4 Benefits Forest and tree-based foods, which carry essential nutrients, are particularly important for poorer households and for women in their role as food providers, especially during times of hardship and in the ‘lean’ season when other sources of food and income are in short supply (HLPE 2017; FAO and UNEP 2020). In many remote areas, the sale of NTFPs is also the only source of income available to women (Shackleton et al. 2011). Yet as a general global trend, compared to men, women: are confined to less profitable forestry value chains; occupy less remunerative nodes (such as harvesting and retailing) of these chains; run smaller businesses; and tend to have fewer ‘vertical’ connections (Ingram et al. 2014; Rubin and Manfre 2014; Haverhals et al. 2016; Gumucio et al. 2018; Ihalainen, Schure and Sola 2020; World Bank 2021b). Women’s involvement in tree-product markets is hindered by a lack of access to capital, cultural norms and taboos, restricted mobility and time deficits. Because men tend to trade in higher volumes and higher value products than women, they earn higher profit margins (Ingram et al. 2014). In Africa, for example, women sell up to seven times less agroforestry products than men by volume (Kiptot 2015; Ingram et al. 2016). In Latin America, men reap the vast majority of the benefits from timber, rubber and cacao value chains, and women are often paid less for their work and their products, even in the same markets (Gumucio et al. 2018). Even when women are involved in the same forest-related enterprises as men, women tend to work in positions with lower associated status and remuneration. In Liberia, for example, only eight percent of forest-related nonfarm enterprises were solely owned by women (compared to 37 percent for men), while women were more represented in sole management (37 percent) than men (33 percent) (World Bank 2021b). This suggests a discrepancy in women’s control over an enterprise’s income, which is likely to be determined by the owner (World Bank 2021b). Markets are expanding for some specialty tree products such as shea nuts, which rural women have traditionally collected and processed into butter. In Burkina Faso, as shea exports rose from US$3.1 million in the early 2000s to nearly US$19.3 million in 2012, local sales prices nearly doubled (Rousseau, Gautier and Wardell 2017). The rising value of shea offers new prospects for the approximately 16.2 million shea collectors who inhabit the Sudano-Sahelian zone, from West to East Africa (Naughton, Lovett and Mihelcic 2015). Yet, such market changes can also pose risks to women’s livelihoods, as more powerful and better connected (male) actors become involved in the trade of products customarily under women’s purview (Ingram et al. 2015; Rousseau, Gautier and Wardell 2019). The drudgery associated with processing many forest products such as shea nuts, a lack of processing equipment and machinery, and of knowledge and skill to generate a quality product in required quantities 8 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 also limit rural women’s returns and capacity to access higher value markets (Jasaw, Saito and Takeuchi 2015; Elias and Arora-Jonsson 2017). Amid forest degradation, climate changes affecting crop production, men’s outmigration, and the lack of alternative livelihood options, some women—particularly in women-headed households in various African countries—are venturing into traditionally male-dominated value chains like charcoal production (Djoudi and Brockhaus 2011; Evans 2014; Ihalainen, Schure and Sola 2020). This creates opportunities for increased income and autonomy, but can also expose women to exploitation and stigmatization (Ihalainen, Schure and Sola 2020). Finally, new markets to compensate communities for preserving ecosystem services, such as through payments for ecosystem services (PES) and REDD+, have tended to reinforce rather than challenge gender inequalities. In Larson et al.’s (2018) six-country study of 62 villages participating in 16 REDD+ initiatives, compared to men, rural women knew much less about the program, had little voice in local REDD+ decision-making processes, and experienced a much greater drop in their subjective well-being over time. Importantly, when payments for carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services are tied to formal land or resource ownership, women or youth who are not registered on titles have been excluded from benefits (Sunderlin et al. 2018; Kariuki and Birner 2021; Tseng et al. 2021). 4.2 Fisheries and aquaculture Primary fisheries and the aquaculture sector employ an estimated 60 million people worldwide, and around 800 million people are engaged across different stages of aquatic food value chains (FAO 2020a). Yet global and most national fisheries policies are gender- blind (Gopal et al. 2020). Moreover, women’s engagement in aquaculture and fisheries, while considerable, is often overlooked and unrecognized in national statistics (Kleiber, Harris and Vincent 2015; Choudhury et al. 2017; Gopal et al. 2020; Harper et al. 2020; FAO 2020a). Looking at the 10-year span between FAO’s State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) reports in 2010 and 2020, lack of sex-disaggregated data in fisheries persists; and statistics on inland fisheries and postharvest activities, where women tend to be concentrated, remain underreported (Kleiber, Harris and Vincent 2015; Choudhury, Rajaratnam and McDougall 2022). Furthermore, official statistics obscure the activities of small-scale fishers, who share and exchange much of their fish informally and in local markets, and may consume a significant portion of their harvest (Arthur et al. 2022). 4.2.1 Gender roles Despite its limitations, the literature and data on gender, aquaculture and fisheries reveal important patterns. First, data shows that both fishing and fish farming are dominated by men. Globally, only 14 percent of (primary sector) fishers and fish farmers overall are women (FAO 2020a). Men dominate offshore and high-value fisheries, but women are disproportionately involved in the harvesting and gleaning (a specific fishing method used in shallow coastal, estuarine and freshwaters waters; or in habitats exposed during low tide) of shellfish and invertebrates (Kleiber, Harris and Vincent 2015; Furkon and Ambo-Rappe 2019). Although participation rates vary regionally, women comprise 47 percent of the global labor force in small-scale fisheries, which garner much less visibility than industrial fisheries (World Bank 2012). Second, gender roles in fisheries and aquaculture are diverse, context- and culturally specific, and often species-specific. Gender norms, such as taboos against women in Bangladesh entering bodies of water (Adam et al. 2021) and cultural norms that women in Malawi should not spend too much time outside the home (Nagoli, Binauli and Chijere 2019), discourage women’s engagement in these activities. In many countries, fish farming is still largely perceived as men’s work, and women’s engagement is limited (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018; Brugere and Williams 2017; Ragasa et al. 2022a). Yet the relationship between gender and aquaculture or fisheries value chains is dynamic and continuously changing due to factors including new technologies (Gopal, Edwin and Meenakumari 2014), climate change, overexploitation of marine resources, and human migration. In the past Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 9 decade, a proliferation of development projects promoting homestead or community ponds/ tanks (e.g., Farnworth et al. 2016) has supported the increased engagement of poor women in aquaculture (TCI 2019). Still, despite a growing number of women’s group aquaculture enterprises and a growing role for women in industrial fisheries (FAO 2013), women generally remain disadvantaged throughout the fish value chain, with their productive potential unrealized (FAO 2013; UN Women 2018). Third, when all stages of the value chain are included, women are estimated to make up half of the global primary and secondary aquaculture- and fisheries-sector workers (Funge- Smith and Bennett 2019), but there is occupational segregation at different nodes of the value chains. Men tend to be involved in the harvesting stage in both capture fisheries and aquaculture (as of 2014, 81 percent of harvest-level workers were men), whereas women are overwhelmingly involved (90 percent) in secondary (postharvest) activities, such as fish processing and marketing (UN Women 2018). In the processing node, women comprise between 50 and 100 percent of the workforce in aquaculture and fisheries (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018; Brugere and Williams 2017). Small-scale processing operations often take place as a backyard informal activity (Kleiber, Harris and Vincent 2015; Harper et al. 2020) using low-cost and often suboptimal techniques, including smoking, salting, and open-air sun drying (Adeogun and Adeogun 2015; Tesfay and Teferi 2017). In medium- and large-scale processing, women make up the majority of the workforce, but are largely confined to low-skilled, low-paid, and often informal, seasonal and part-time jobs; whereas men are more commonly involved in skilled and managerial full-time work (UN Women 2020). As a result, women receive fewer job benefits and experience higher risk of exploitation (UN Women 2020). In larger scale global seafood ventures, women are outnumbered in director roles: they range from two percent of directors in Chile and Japan to a high point of 31 percent in Norway (UN Women 2018). The involvement of women in aquaculture and fisheries trading is more visible and better documented than in primary production. The proportion of women involved in trading widely differs by country: from 0 percent reported in Bangladesh to 99 percent in Nigeria (Farnworth 2015; Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). Even within a country, women’s participation can vary widely. For example, in Nigeria, women play important roles across the value chain in all surveyed states except Kano (where, possibly due to cultural and religious differences, men dominate almost all value chain activities) (Subasinghe et al. 2021). At the trading node of the value chain, there is a stark difference between women and men traders in terms of fish species traded, hours worked, volume of fish traded and more. Women tend to sell a narrower variety of fish species, in lower volumes, and to have lower profits (Farnworth 2015; Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). In Nigeria, businesses owned by women are smaller in size (based on profit) than those of their male counterparts, especially at the processor and retailer levels (Subasinghe et al. 2021). Women generally have less access than men to transport, storage facilities, and information on markets, quality standards and regulations. Women traders are also exposed to greater harassment in markets, and ‘sex-for-fish’ transactions between men fishers and women traders seeking to secure fish for sale are reported in small-scale fisheries in Africa, and to a lesser extent in other regions—exposing women to health and safety risks (Béné and Merten 2008; Farnworth 2015; Fiorella et al. 2015; El-Azzazy 2019). 4.2.2 Access to and control over assets and resources Women face serious disadvantages in access to fisheries and aquaculture resources along the value chain; their assets are both fewer and of lesser value than men’s (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). In Bangladesh, for example, women own less than one percent of fish ponds (Jahan et al. 2015) and two percent of fishing boats and nets (Momtaz, Asaduzzaman and Kabir 2021). In Zambia, men were significantly more likely than women to report sole ownership of locally produced fishing equipment, externally produced fishing equipment, and canoes (Ragsdale et al. 2022); and in Ghana, while some women producers are starting to manage fish farms, ownership of the land (and fish ponds) is still in their husband’s name (Ragasa et al. 2022b). 10 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Postharvest, small-scale fishers, processors and traders largely lack access to cold storage technology to keep fish fresh; but here too, gender disparities exist (FAO 2017, cited in UN Women 2018). Lack of access to storage, among other factors, leads to significant postharvest losses, which are more pronounced among women than men (Nordhagen 2021). For example, in a case study in Zambia, women lost between three and eight times more fish by volume than men, depending on their stage in the chain (Kaminski and Cole 2017). Barriers to accessing transport, information, credit and financial resources, and entrepreneurial support further limit women’s enterprises in this sector (UN Women 2018). 4.2.3 Decision-making Globally, discriminatory norms, customs, laws, and regulatory mechanisms tend to lock women out of decision-making spaces and relegate them to lower, informal nodes of the fisheries and aquaculture value chains (Weeratunge-Starkloff and Pant 2011; Mangubhai and Lawless 2021). This leads to women’s underrepresentation in fish farmer groups and fisheries networks (Weeratunge-Starkloff and Pant 2011). Even in activities that are dominated by women, men often make the decisions. For example, in a study in Zambia, men had more decision-making input in fishing, processing, transporting and selling fish, even though selling fish was the primary occupation of women surveyed (Ragsdale et al. 2022). One-fifth (20.1 percent) of women reported little to no decision-making power in this activity, despite it being considered ‘women’s work’ (Ragsdale et al. 2022). In the industrial fishing sector, management is overwhelmingly male dominated (UN Women 2018). Merely two percent of the maritime industry workforce are women, and women are largely absent from decision-making positions (MacNeil and Ghosh 2017, cited in UN Women 2018). In 2016, only one of the top 100 seafood companies was run by a woman (FAO 2016c, cited in UN Women 2018), and 55 percent of seafood companies analyzed had no women as directors or on their boards (UN Women 2018).7 4.2.4 Benefits Limitations on women’s upward mobility in fisheries and aquaculture value chains result in an uneven allocation of benefits, with women’s labor often viewed as an extension of their unpaid domestic duties (Weeratunge-Starkloff and Pant 2011). Even when men and women are working in the same capacity with the same product, women’s incomes are often lower. Gender-based income disparities range from 10–20 percent in fish and shrimp farming in Bangladesh to 46 percent of net profits in fish retailing in Egypt (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). In many countries, few women are involved in aquaculture production, and those involved are primarily working in homestead and small plots with low-value fish species (Brugere and Williams 2017; Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). While there are increasingly well-off women who engage in aquaculture production and input supply, these are rare cases (Ragasa et al. 2022b). In many countries, gender norms restricting women’s activities outside the home make it difficult to deliver training, services, resources, and other support to women fish farmers, and restrict their membership in organizations and associations (Ragasa et al. 2022b; Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). Despite women’s dominance in fish processing, they are paid less overall than men (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018), although it is not clear from the analyses whether the difference applies to jobs of the same type and nature. Women are particularly poorly paid or unpaid in small-scale processing (UN Women 2018). While women are very active in fish trading, the intensity and quality of their involvement and the benefits derived depends on the type of fish traded and the season (Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018). With few exceptions, women traders are generally concentrated in segments of the value chain that focus on lower value fish (dried and small fish). They work fewer hours per day in fish 7. This analysis was of 68 of the top 100 seafood companies. Data on the board composition of the other 32 companies was not available. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 11 retail, and their firms tend to sell a narrower variety of fish species and often deal with lower volumes, resulting in lower profits than men (Kantor and Kruijssen 2014). Differences also occur within gender groups; for example, women traders in Nigeria have unequal access to fish after harvest, with richer women often carrying much more influence with fishermen (Akintola and Fakoya 2017). 4.3 Livestock Echoing the findings from the forestry and fisheries and aquaculture sectors, despite women’s considerable contribution to livestock development, livestock national policies continue to be largely gender-blind across regional contexts (e.g., see Aregu et al. 2016 on Ethiopia; and Global Forest Coalition 2021 on Bolivia, Nepal, Paraguay and Togo). Moreover, there is a dearth of robust global-, regional- and national-level datasets that document women’s ownership, decision-making, and participation in livestock production. At present, most gender and livestock studies focus on a single country or case study, as opposed to systematic or global reviews and multicountry studies. Given these significant data gaps, the livestock findings presented below generally refer to a single country or case study example, or review papers on specific topics related to livestock development (e.g., design of gender- responsive livestock interventions, in Chanamuto and Hall 2015), unless otherwise specified. There is also little data that captures women’s full engagement in different markets and value chain nodes within the livestock sector. For example, because women are often more involved in informal than formal markets (Hovorka 2012; Njuki and Sanginga 2013), their contributions may be underreported and data only partially representative of their realities of working in the sector. Furthermore, in cases where women’s participation in livestock activities is considered socially inappropriate or illegal, obtaining reliable data is difficult and presents ethical challenges for researchers (Tavenner, Crane and Saxena 2021). 4.3.1 Gender roles Rural women represent two-thirds of the world’s poor livestock keepers,8 and carry out most of the day-to-day farm animal management, processing, marketing, and sale of animals and their products (FAO, 2012). Women play a dominant role in small livestock production and marketing (Herrero et al. 2013). As the main users and caretakers of locally adapted livestock breeds, they are also preservers of livestock diversity (Köhler-Rollefson 2012). Gender roles, responsibilities, and constraints in livestock value chains vary based on the type of livestock species/product (Hovorka 2012) and production system (e.g., pastoral, smallholder or commercial) within the local sociocultural context (Tavenner and Crane 2018). However, across systems, customary gender roles are often biased (Serra et al. 2018). Gendered social meaning, which ascribes power and positioning for women and men in local livestock systems (Serra et al. 2018), frames the gendered division of labor within a livestock subsector. For example, the most powerful and profitable breeds of livestock (e.g., cattle, camels and buffalo) are often ascribed ‘masculine’ social power and their care and control dominated by men; whereas other, less powerful, less profitable livestock breeds (e.g., poultry and small ruminants) are given ‘feminized’ meaning and are considered more culturally acceptable for women’s engagement (Hovorka 2012). The result of these cleavages are clearly defined gender roles in livestock production, which underpin routine management tasks such as livestock grazing (Najjar and Baruah 2021) and livestock feeding (Harris-Coble et al. 2022), as well as gender-differentiated knowledge about zoonotic disease transmission (Kinati and Mulema 2018). This division of labor relies heavily on women’s unpaid labor, including for the demanding tasks of harvesting fodder (Njuguna-Mungai et al. 2022) and fetching water for cattle in intensified dairy production (Ransom et al. 2017). Amid rapid current changes in agricultural systems, technological change in the livestock sector has strong gender and labor implications, as it typically involves 8. For a detailed accounting of the facts behind these figures and to contextualize the origins of this statement, see MacVicar (2020). 12 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 renegotiation, reassignment or deepening of roles and responsibilities within households, which can alter traditional patterns of access to resources such as milk, land, and income (Gallina 2016). Recent studies elucidate how gender and other intersectional identities—including age (Bullock and Crane 2021), marital status (Tavenner and Crane 2019), ethnicity (Serra et al. 2022), and caste (Ravichandran, Rozel Farnworth and Galiè 2021)—mediate gender roles and power relations in livestock development. Ravichandran, Rozel Farnworth, and Galiè (2021) further show that, while gender and caste norms restrict women’s inclusion and control over dairy income in India, dairy cooperatives that have sought to empower women of all castes and successfully engage men as supporters were able to inclusively support women’s empowerment. Evidence on how gender and intersecting social norms shape asset ownership, decision-making, and benefits associated with livestock production (Galiè et al. 2022; McKune, Serra and Touré 2021; Tavenner and Crane 2018) has shed light on pathways to women’s empowerment in livestock systems. The fluidity of gender norms has also been evidenced by the circumvention of patriarchal norms in masculinized production systems (Tavenner, Crane and Saxena 2021). 4.3.2 Access to and control over assets and resources Livestock are an important resource for many rural households, and livestock ownership has been identified as a pathway out of poverty for women when it allows them to secure current and future assets (Kristjanson et al. 2014). Multiple studies (Galiè et al. 2019b; Marsh et al. 2016; Johnson et al. 2016; Price et al. 2018; Bain, Ransom and Halimatusa’diyah 2020; Gitungwa et al. 2021) have showcased that when women have access to and control over livestock assets, they have greater capacity to improve the health, education and food security of their households. However, while there is variation based on local sociocultural contexts, there are significant global gender gaps in livestock assets and associated resources needed for production (Serra et al. 2018). These include gaps in land ownership and access to: pastures (Flintan 2021; ILRI 2021a, 2021b), fodder and forages (Njuguna-Mungai et al. 2022), water (Ransom et al. 2017), credit (Silong, Fada, and Gadanakis 2019), technology and information (Patel et al. 2016) and veterinary services and products, such as vaccines (Namatovu, Campbell and Ouma 2021; Acosta et al. 2022) Significant progress has been made to measure, monitor and evaluate these gaps, such as by using the project-level WEAI (pro-WEAI) (Malapit et al. 2020) and the Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) (Galiè et al. 2019a; Colverson et al. 2020; McLeod, Galiè and Baltenweck 2021; Quisumbing et al. 2023). The WELI departs from traditional survey methods for measuring women’s empowerment by advocating for the use of complementary participatory and qualitative methods to provide context-specific insights on the processes of women’s empowerment in the livestock sector (Galiè et al. 2019a). Using these mixed methods has enabled more nuanced evidence of women’s empowerment beyond an aggregated indicator score to include discussion of women’s perceived empowerment. For example, a WELI-based study of pastoral communities in Tanzania (Galiè et al. 2019b) revealed that women’s perceived claims of control over livestock resources may be more relevant in the local context than aggregate ‘ownership’ scores. These evolutionary changes in measurement reflect an understanding that local meanings of livestock ownership can reveal important and unnoticed aspects of resource allocation, and provide guidance for locally relevant approaches to improve gender equality (Galiè et al. 2015; Dumas et al. 2018). 4.3.3 Decision-making The gender inequalities embedded in localized sociocultural norms around livestock and in access to and control over resources influence decision-making at the intrahousehold, community and local institutional levels. Within the household, these inequalities intersect with the relative positioning of women—for example, between mothers- and daughters- in-law; between older and younger women; and in polygamous cultures, among co-wives (Tavenner and Crane 2019). Gender inequalities in access to markets and weak linkages to Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 13 value chain actors due to low literacy levels and marketing skills, inequitable work burdens, and mobility restrictions also affect women’s ability to make informed choices in livestock marketing (Jimah and Fischer 2021) and to control income from the sale of livestock and value-added products (Tavenner et al. 2019). Recent research has drawn attention to the complexities of intrahousehold decision-making in the livestock sector, highlighting both complementary (Flintan 2021) and conflicting (Hillesland, Doss and Slavchevska 2020; Tavenner et al. 2018) dynamics between spouses. Moreover, gender differences in the types of livestock decisions (e.g., decisions for household consumption of livestock and their associated products versus decisions on the sale of livestock) have been observed (Carter et al. 2017; Basu, Galiè and Baltenweck 2019; Bonis- Profumo et al. 2022). For example, in a study of over 5,000 East African smallholder farmers, women had far greater control over decisions related to consumption than over decisions related to sales. This difference was less pronounced for lower value and feminized livestock products such as poultry and eggs. The study suggested that as livestock sales increase, women’s control over these sales may diminish, regardless of specific type of livestock (Tavenner et al. 2019). To mitigate these potential negative impacts on women’s decision-making, gender-responsive training on livestock management has supported women’s involvement in decision-making and normative change related to the distribution of household income (Quisumbing et al. 2015). Furthermore, women’s participation in self-help groups and women-led agricultural collectives have provided pathways to women’s empowerment by increasing their economic independence, control over their income, and livestock-related decision-making at both the household and community levels (Rewani and Tochhawng 2016). 4.3.4 Benefits Taken together, the persistent global and localized inequalities in gender norms, assets, and decision-making within the livestock sector discussed above constrain many women’s ability to participate in, benefit from, and be empowered through livestock development. The potential benefits women can derive from livestock production and marketing—including increased economic empowerment and independence (Basu and Galiè 2021), improved nutritional and food security outcomes (Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems 2020; Price et al. 2018), and resilience to climate change (Acosta, Nicolli and Karfakis 2021)—are buffered by these constraints. The gender gap in income derived from livestock sales has been the most documented (Njuki and Sangina 2013; Baltenweck et al. 2021). The size of the gap appears to differ based on the livestock species/product, as well as the level of commercial orientation. For example, women are customarily better able to control income from the sale of sheep, goats, pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs, poultry, eggs, and milk than from the sale of larger ruminants (Chanamuto and Hall 2015); and are more likely to farm local breeds (Köhler-Rollefson 2012). These locally adapted breeds, which are likely more climate resilient, hold potential for women’s resilience amid climate changes (Chanamuto and Hall 2015). When livestock production intensifies and farmers become more commercially oriented, however, women tend to lose control over customarily controlled livestock species/products (Chanamuto and Hall 2015). For example, in a study of smallholder households in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, women’s control over income from livestock products displayed a significant negative correlation with the value of income generated from each individual farm product (Tavenner et al. 2019). This strongly suggests that the more economically lucrative a farm product becomes, the more likely men are to control income from that product. 14 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 5. Strategies and initiatives to close the gender gap Several types of policy, programmatic and civil society initiatives have sought to redress these gender and social inequalities, but there is limited rigorous empirical evidence of the impacts these initiatives have on gender equality or of their sustainability. Of the few impact studies available, many demonstrate methodological challenges and their estimates have high risk of bias (Gonzalez Parrao et al. 2021). Many of these studies are project documents or analyze small samples or cherry-picked cases. Below, we present strategies and initiatives across sectors that have been reported to ‘move the needle’ on gender equality in their specific context. They have been selected as examples of change within the four pathways described in the quadrants in figure 1. Although each stem from a particular sector, the approaches they espouse also hold relevance for the other sectors of focus. The cases presented demonstrate that changes along different pathways are mutually reinforcing (e.g., increases in women’s agency can improve their control over resources, and vice versa). Additional examples across sectors and pathways are presented in table 1. Together, the cases highlight the importance of solid partnerships and long-term engagement among a wide array of stakeholders to generate change. Multiple levels of government, policies and public services, nongovernmental organizations, agricultural development projects—and the donors who support them—play essential roles in creating an enabling environment for change. Critically, civil society and collectives, customary authorities, private-sector (producer) organizations, among others, are key actors to advocate for and champion change from the bottom up. 5.1 Agency The field of forestry provides examples of how to strengthen women’s individual and collective agency by increasing their active participation in forest-user groups. In India, achieving a ‘critical mass’ of women participants at forestry meetings increased women’s agency (Arora-Jonsson 2012), and having mixed-gender forest-user groups composed of at least one-third women helped women to attend and speak up during meetings and hold office in committees (Agarwal 2015). In a cross-country study, prior participation of women on the executive committees of forest-user groups increased the probability of having women councillors on these boards in the future (Coleman and Mwangi 2015). Peer-to-peer mentoring and support networks have enabled women to participate and take leadership roles in forestry organizations (Kaaria et al. 2016). Strengthening collective action and creating and/or supporting women-only groups (e.g., self-help or savings and credit groups that may not be directly related to the forest, or subgroups within forest-user groups) have helped women gain self-confidence, capacities, experience in working together, and a sense of collectivity, which they can then bring to mixed forest-user groups (Agarwal 2010, 2015). Similar changes in women’s leadership and social empowerment were noted after women engaged in women’s self-help groups for livestock rearing in India and Kenya (Rewani and Tochhawng 2016; National Smallholder Poultry Development Trust 2018; Christie and Chebrolu 2020; Mwambi, Bijman and Galiè 2021). External agencies can play an important role in supporting these groups and promoting the integration and active participation of some of their members in mixed-gender groups to represent women’s interests. External actors can also support monitoring of gender equality and benefit-sharing in these groups (Kristjanson 2020). In turn, higher order community forestry Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 15 associations or federations have been successful platforms to engage with the government and promote broad structural changes in gender norms and for women’s participation in public spaces (Giri and Darnhofer 2010b; Arora-Jonsson 2012; Kristjanson 2020). 5.2 Access to and control over resources In several examples from fisheries, supporting gender-equitable access to agroprocessing technologies not only reduced postharvest losses, but also reduced women’s (and, to a lesser extent, men’s) time burdens, allowing them to engage in other pursuits (FAO 2013; Akintola and Fakoya 2017; Cole et al. 2018). Providing battery-operated bicycles to women fish traders in India has successfully increased their mobility and facilitated their trade (FAO 2013). Successful nutrition- and gender-sensitive approaches to aquaculture and fisheries have improved women’s and children’s nutrition security by promoting women’s access to: resources and assets, including dried fish powder (Byrd et al. 2021); improved processing technologies (Cole et al. 2018); homestead fishponds (Castine et al. 2017; Thilsted et al. 2016); and integrated aqua-agri-livestock systems (Akter et al. 2020). Approaches targeting women’s collectives have been especially effective for improving women’s access to key aquaculture and fisheries resources. In India, a program based on self-help groups helped bolster the nutrition security of households by improving women’s access to community aquaculture tanks and nutritious small fish such as sunfish (TCI 2019). Group-based training and credit-provision programs targeting women have improved their participation in aquaculture, their share of benefits, asset ownership relative to their husbands (Quisumbing and Kumar 2011; FAO 2013; Kruijssen, McDougall and van Asseldonk 2018), social capital, mobility, likelihood of having paid work (Hallman, Lewis and Begum 2003, cited in Gonzalez Parrao et al. 2021) and access to credit (Adam et al. 2021). To close asset gaps and increase the productive capacity of livestock producers and entrepreneurs, gender-responsive livestock-development programs have delivered services and products tailored to the specific needs and preferences of women (McLeod, Galiè and Baltenweck 2021; Rosimo et al. 2018). For example, in Bangladesh, a Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) program provided ultrapoor women with: livestock such as cattle, goats and poultry birds; intensive training on how to use these assets to generate income; and mechanisms to regain assets sold by husbands without women’s permission. This program increased women’s use rights to these assets, although it ultimately did not increase their ownership rights (Roy et al. 2015). Inclusive access to affordable, reliable and sustainable technologies can also have transformative effects when they free up women’s labor and enable access to information and other resources. Solar-powered cold chains (food storage units designed to keep food fresh at markets and on farms) implemented in various countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are promising technologies that can reduce fish food loss, support climate resilience, improve market efficiencies, reduce workloads and increase profits to women and men vendors (Efficiency for Access 2020; Takeshima et al. 2021). Further monitoring and rigorous evaluation of technology-transfer initiatives will be important to ensure and sustain positive impacts on women’s welfare and empowerment. 5.3 Social norms Because gender norms and relations, as well as women’s empowerment, critically shape food environments and diets (HLPE 2017; Lecoutere, Kosec, et al. 2023), several initiatives have focused on shifting discriminatory gender attitudes and norms across the sectors of focus (Kantor, Morgan, and Choudhury 2015) (table 1). For example, in India, a behavior-change- communication campaign successfully challenged norms prescribing women’s seclusion to enable more women fish traders to use public transport (FAO 2013). In Bangladesh, combining social–technical innovations involving women-targeted technology and GTAs that prompted community members to critically reflect on discriminatory gender norms allowed women to overcome a double barrier to participating in aquaculture: lack of gender-appropriate 16 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 fishing equipment, and social norms classifying aquaculture as ‘men’s work’ (Adam et al. 2021; Choudhury and Castellanos 2020). This resulted in women’s increased involvement in aquaculture, and improved household nutrition security through greater access to nutritious small fish (mola) (Choudhury and Castellanos 2020). Still in Bangladesh, engaging husbands and wives together in training on prawn polyculture (simultaneous cultivation of two or more compatible organisms in a single area) challenged existing gender norms, and an evaluation of the program suggested that its positive average effect on women’s empowerment indicators was likely due to its household approach (DANIDA 2008, cited in Gonzalez Parrao et al. 2021). In India, the creation of ‘contact zones,’ where different gender and social groups engaged in dialogue and social learning about gender relating to collective forest management, helped to create mutual respect and appreciation across gender and caste groups, as well as leveling power relations and promoting unity in community-based forest management (Hegde et al. 2017). Strategies identified as effective in reducing benefit gaps in livestock systems highlight the importance of addressing the root causes of gender inequalities—including harmful gender norms that inhibit women’s agency and decision-making power (Bullock and Tegbaru 2019; Mugisha et al. 2020; Mulema et al. 2020). For example, in Ethiopia, the participatory action research method of ‘community conversations’ was used to shift gender norms that limit women’s meaningful engagement in productive roles and their economic empowerment in livestock development (Mulema et al. 2020). 5.4 Policies and governance Despite many calls and recommendations for gender-responsive policies as well as critiques of gender-blind and discriminatory policies (Lecoutere et al. 2022), there is a notable gap in the literature on policies that have worked to enhance gender equality across the forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock sectors. This is reflected below and in annex table 1, which includes examples of promising policies and approaches for enhancing civil society’s voice in policymaking, rather than assessments of successful implementation and performance. Climate change is affecting each of the sectors examined in gender-differentiated ways. The extent to which policies account for these differences, and for women’s and men’s agency in climate action, varies widely (Bryan et al. 2023). The government of Costa Rica has demonstrated political will and institutional capacity by investing in gender equality in its response to climate change, and biodiversity and forest conservation (Aguilar Revelo 2021; UN-REDD 2021). The country’s Nationally Determined Contributions9 document refers to gender throughout, recognizing the particular vulnerabilities of transgender people, women, persons with disabilities, and Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples to climate change (DCC 2020). Costa Rica’s gender action plan for its national REDD+ strategy was prepared in consultation with civil society organizations and different groups of Indigenous women and rural smallholder forest producers, resulting in a concrete proposal for social and environmental transformation based on a diversity of needs and priorities. It recognized and identified support for activities through which women are already actively engaged in reforestation, and includes a benefit-sharing plan to improve rural women’s incomes and livelihoods while contributing to REDD+ goals (World Bank 2019; Aguila Revelo 2021). In Southeast Asia, Vietnam and the Philippines have developed specific national and sectoral gender action plans for aquaculture or fisheries (Bosma et al. 2019). The Philippines gender action plans were operationalized by all institutions at each level by defining specific budgets, activities, and monitoring using gender-specific indicators (Bosma et al. 2019). Implementation was weaker in Vietnam, but aquaculture and fisheries gender action plans have been actively implemented in some provinces, sometimes with the support of a local or a regional project (Bosma et al. 2018). 9. In Nationally Determined Contributions, countries outline their proposed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to climate change. Source: 2022 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement). Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 17 In the livestock sector in East Africa, institutional advances toward gender equality have been made in pastoral (ILRI 2021b) and commercial livestock systems (CCAFS 2022). In Kenya, commercial dairy-production institutions (including private companies, national- and county- level milk cooperatives, and women-led producer organizations) have advanced gender equality through gender mainstreaming strategies and the inclusion of women and youth in institutional leadership (Katothya 2017). Kenya’s dairy sector’s Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action plan includes the design of private-sector investments in gender-inclusive extension services to increase on-farm productivity and strengthen women dairy farmers’ knowledge of climate-smart dairy practices (CCAFS 2022). Table 1. Examples of initiatives successfully improving gender equality Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Agency Forestry Adaptive Collaborative In Uganda, intergender dialogues in the Management (ACM) is a context of ACM provided a safe platform for collective problem-solving women to be heard in the presence of men and management approach without intimidation or retribution. After eight that supports gender equity years, ACM resulted in: in negotiations and decision- making through participatory • The proportion of women in executive dialogues among community roles increased from 11% to 54% in a more members and with other actors gender-balanced forum that accounted for (Evans et al. 2014; Evans, Larson women’s interests and priorities. and Flores 2020). • Community-based reforestation of degraded forests, women’s involvement in the management of these forests, and their enhanced benefits from forest reserves. • Increase in women’s decision-making, confidence, engagement and agency, including in seeking external assistance. • Women’s attendance and participation in group discussions increased, from low levels to nearly 1:1 with men and boys, with women’s attendance sometimes exceeding mens’ (Mukasa et al. 2016). • Improved coordination among communities, NGOs, and state forestry agencies (Evans et al. 2014). In Nepal, after eight years, changes resulting from ACM included: • Women members of executive committees nearly doubled, from 18 to 34 percent. • Among women representatives, poor women experienced the highest increase in numbers, from 31 to 40 percent. • Representatives considered by their forest- user group to be poor increased from 15 to 29 percent. • Forest-user groups grew their networks and were able to proactively advocate for information, resources and collaboration with external actors (McDougall and Banjade 2015). Cont. 18 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Agency Fisheries and The farmer field In Bangladesh, co-research through women-led fish aquaculture school approach, schools, carried out alongside technical training on which centers cultivation and farmers’ development of their own low- farmers as the cost, local fish feeds, resulted in: decision-makers and co-experimenters • Development of low-cost local fish feeds that are who learn by considered more climate-friendly and accessible than doing, was adapted commercial feeds (Adam et al. 2021). to smallholder aquaculture (“fish • Women’s increased practical knowledge and skills, schools”) to assess e.g., pertaining to climate-smart species and best climate-resilient management practices. fish species and • Women’s direct access to and control over fingerlings. other climate-smart innovations adapted • Over 75  percent of women in the study reported to the local context positive changes in their household decision-making power, especially with respect to household food security and income. • For some women, a reported decrease in time deficit due to increased access to homestead ponds. • Yet, overall empowerment gains were limited by persistent gendered power differentials and norms within the household (Colgan et al. 2019). Livestock A backward- and A new factory in central India for pelleted poultry feed forward-integrated is bringing women from Indigenous communities a producer company step closer to economic and social empowerment. fully owned by rural The factory is owned by a federation of 10 poultry women (National growers’ cooperatives (Madhya Pradesh Women Poultry Smallholder Poultry Producers Company Private Limited)—India’s first Development Trust completely backward- and forward-integrated producer 2018) company fully owned by rural women. The village-based cooperatives have more than 6,000 members. The majority of the members have no formal education and are classified by the Indian Government as living below the poverty line. However, since the establishment of the Madhya Pradesh Women Poultry Producers Company Private Limited in 2008, things have changed. • In 2017, the group collectively earned the equivalent of over EU$2.5 million (US$2.93 million). • 5,000 women smallholder farmers have gained access to finance and chicken sheds. • 15  million chickens are produced by the Madhya Pradesh Women Poultry Producers Company Private Limited each year. • Positive impacts on women’s empowerment have included increased self-confidence, self-reliance, increased availability of protein-rich food for the community, and increased income for rural women. Infographic available at: https://www.rabobank.com/en/ images/infographic-mpwpcl.pdf Cont. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 19 Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Access to and Forestry Working with In 2014, The African Women’s Network for the Community control over women´s Management of Forests (REFACOF) worked with women resources cooperatives to from the Cooperative of Fisher People (COOPEL) in secure rights and Londji village to restore degraded mangrove forest and restore degraded plant orchards in coastal forest villages in Cameroon. As community forests women’s rights to plant trees were limited, REFACOF worked with community members, chiefs and husbands— who were the de-facto rights holders. The project invested in promoting leadership, and enhancing women’s monitoring skills and access to specialized equipment. Equipped with new knowledge and resources, and with capacity in mangrove reforestation techniques, women have taken ownership of mangrove restoration in coastal communities in Cameroon. REFACOF has continued working with these women to secure legal status for the mangrove areas as ‘community forests’ and elaborate clear frameworks for their management (Mwangi and Evans 2018). Fisheries and Information and In coastal Bangladesh, recent fisheries management aquaculture communication measures have closed hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) technology (ICT) fisheries for three months of the year, leaving those including mobile who are reliant on the fisheries for their livelihoods in a video technology vulnerable position. Women, especially, are left with few and banking apps options due to the unrecognized, informal and limited for mobile phones nature of their engagement with hilsa shad and with (bKash) decision-making pertaining to the fishery. To strengthen women’s economic resilience during the hilsa shad closure, WorldFish has introduced ICT to help women communicate, work, receive training in alternate means of labor (in this case, often crocheting toys and clothes for export) and receive payment without leaving the house, resulting in: • Lessening the digital divide between men and women, thereby synergistically helping close the financial divide (Adam et al. 2021). • Providing a workaround for gender-based mobility constraints (Choudhury and Tanzina 2020). • Increasing capacities for women to engage in nonaquaculture income production (Choudhury and Tanzina 2020). Livestock Gender-responsive In Guinayangan, Philippines, the International Institute small livestock of Rural Reconstruction implemented a direct livestock system intervention: resource-transfer intervention promoting the practice of direct livestock low-external-input pig production. resource transfer • The intervention reached 192 households and served as (native pigs, with a less-risk-prone livelihood opportunity, helping women commercial feeds farmers increase incomes and consequently control and climate-smart over where to spend it. housing) (Rosimo et al. 2018) • In the first two years of the project there was a nearly 15-fold increase in the number of women farmers participating and benefiting (five to 74 farmers). • Women were able to purchase school supplies and meet their children’s other needs through the sale of livestock, and in some cases could afford medical treatments for their husbands. Cont. 20 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Social norms Forestry ACM is a collective In Uganda, ACM led to shifts in norms hindering women’s problem-solving tree and land tenure, thereby allowing women to gain and management control over resources by securing their own plots and approach planting a greater diversity of tree species: that supports • 51 women (out of 167) women planted Ficus natalensis, gender equity a tree denoting land ownership and forbidden to in negotiations women, compared to zero women before ACM. and decision- making through • Women, many of whom had never planted a tree before, participatory planted 8,541 trees; before the intervention, there dialogues among were 350 women-planted trees in total in the woodlots community targeted for ACM (Mukasa et al. 2016). members and with other actors (Evans In Nepal, after eight years, changes resulting from ACM et al. 2014; Evans, included: Larson and Flores 2020). • Enactment of several rules enhancing distributional equity (while conserving forest resources), including new permissions for income-generation activities amid the poor and women (McDougall and Banjade 2015). Fisheries and GTAs, consisting In the Barotse Floodplain of Zambia, a quasi-experimental aquaculture of iterative cycles small-n (80) study of GTAs, used in conjunction with of intergender innovations in fish-processing technology to reduce dialogues on postharvest losses, showed that GTAs catalyzed more gender norms, significant changes in gender attitudes and in indicators action planning and of women’s empowerment than gender-accommodative reflecting. In the approaches (applied in control fish camps). GTA study, GTAs included contributed to: behavior-change • Increase in gender attitudes scores from 11.7  percent communication, (13.3  percent for participant men) across villages to such as drama 28.6 percent in GTA villages (35.7 percent for the men). skits focusing on gender issues, • Increase in women’s participation in fishing from five to combined with 75 percent after implementation of GTAs. sessions to reflect on gender norms in • 49 percent increase in women providing ‘large inputs’ to participatory action intrahousehold decisions on how to spend income from research groups fish sales. (Cole et al. 2018; 2020). • 76  percent of men responded that they ‘jointly’ own fishing gear with their spouse, compared to 44 percent before the intervention (Cole et al. 2018). • Gender-transformative interventions resulted in a mean increase in gender-equal attitude scores more than twice as high as when gender-accommodative approaches were used. • The proportion of women who processed fish increased from 55 to 85 percent (Cole et al. 2020). Cont. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 21 Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Social Livestock Community Community conversations are a participatory action research norms conversations approach meant to shift gender norms that limit women’s meaningful to transform engagement in productive roles and their economic empowerment. gender relations In Ethiopia, conversations bringing together community members and increase and an array of stakeholders focused on the division of labor, access women’s access to and control of resources, power relations, and institutions and to information structures that influence women’s empowerment and access to on livestock information on livestock health. in Ethiopia • The program reached 1,600 men and women community members (Mulema et al. in five communities, with evidence of better safety practices when 2020) handling sick animals and increased awareness of the risks of antimicrobial resistance. • Engaging key stakeholders in the conversations helped facilitate changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices that expose humans to zoonoses in the context of climate change. There were noticeable changes in attitudes and practices among women and men regarding unsafe handling of animals, consumption of animal- sourced foods, and men’s involvement in unpaid care work. The dialogues engaged participants at both cognitive and emotional levels to foster an understanding of the benefits of change (Mulema et al. 2020). Program documentary: “Changing hearts and minds: Community conversations in Ethiopia” https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=goMy0UM6H0o&list=WL&index=1 Policies and Forestry Collective Forests make up close to 45 percent of Nepal’s total area, more governance action through than a quarter of which is managed by communities (RRI 2018). federations of Since the national community forestry program was initiated in user groups, 1990, community forestry in Nepal has contributed significantly to and affirmative community development and forest-cover restoration, rendering it a action success story of forest conservation. (reservations) to promote the Created in 1995, the Federation of Community Forest Users of Nepal participation (FECOFUN) was established as a coalition of forest users across the of women and country, including Indigenous Peoples and women, to strengthen marginalized their voice in policymaking processes. It has since grown into the groups in largest civil society organization in Nepal and a national social policymaking movement, comprising over 19,000 community forest-user groups and 8.5 million forest users; and emerged as a champion of women’s leadership (Jhaveri 2020). To promote gender gender equality, FECOFUN’s constitution states that: • Half of its executive members at all levels (local, district and national) must be women. • One of each of the key office-bearer positions of FECOFUN has to be occupied by women. FECOFUN’s gender-equality rules were eventually adopted by the Community Forestry Guidelines issued under the 1993 Forest Act (RRI 2017). FECOFUN’s success in reaching and engaging with communities across the country, including their women members, was demonstrated during the general elections of 2017, when 1,976 community forestry activists, 632 of whom are women, were elected to local government with FECOFUN’s support (RRI 2018). Through their community forestry experience, these elected representatives gained confidence and vision (Jhaveri 2020). Their election in local government allows them to have a ‘seat at the table’ in key decision- making processes for the future of Nepal´s forests and development. Cont. 22 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Primary Sector Initiative Outcome pathway of change Policies and Fisheries and Gender As Bradford and Katikiro (2019) explain, the Tanzanian governance aquaculture mainstreaming in National Fisheries Policy of 2015 (United Republic of national fisheries Tanzania 2015) was the country’s first national fisheries policies (United policy to attempt to mainstream gender into all levels of Republic of Tanzania policy, planning, decision-making and implementation. 2015) Gender elements in the policy include: • Recognition of the negative effects of discriminatory sociocultural practices, lack of awareness and expertise, inequitable access to fisheries productive resources and benefits, and calls for the government to address these challenges. • Calls for the ministry responsible for fisheries and aquaculture, local government, nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations to support initiatives promoting gender equality. • The policy seeks to mainstream cross-cutting issues, including gender and HIV/AIDS, in fisheries development. Tanzania is also one of few countries to develop a national action plan to implement the United Nations’ 2015 Voluntary Guidelines for Sustaining Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) (FAO 2015), which dedicates one of its 13 guiding principles to gender equality and equity (Bradford and Katikiro 2019). Livestock Empowering women The Piloting of Participatory Rangeland Management through participatory Project (PRMP) aims to support women’s empowerment in rangeland pastoral societies via rangeland management institutions management (ILRI in Kenya and Tanzania. The project aims to do this by 2021a) providing opportunities to value and use women’s knowledge and their roles in rangeland management through an expansion of livelihood activities, improving their understanding of natural resource management challenges and potential solutions, and increasing participation in decision-making processes. • The PRMP established rangeland management committees in pastoralist communities to improve women’s access to resources and decision-making at an institutional level. It planned to establish at least 10 rangeland management committees by the end of 2021, with at least 30  percent representation by women. To date, there are eight fully functional rangeland management institutions in Tanzania and Kenya, with almost 45 percent women members. • In Kenya, by the end of 2020, over 1,593 people directly participated in PRM activities, including 419 women (26.3  percent). Newly constituted committees are now working closely with youth, elders and women to manage grazing patterns and ensure grazing land is rested as needed. • In Tanzania, 52  percent of officials in the rangeland management committees are women. This has given women more scope to voice their concerns and contribute to decisions about management and rangeland governance. Cont. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 23 6. The promise of closing the gender gap Gender is scarcely discussed in foresight studies on food systems (Lentz 2021), and no foresight studies explicitly bringing gender together with forests, livestock, aquaculture or fisheries could be found. Yet juxtaposing findings from several studies suggests that enhancing gender equality in these sectors can have significant impacts across multiple food system outcomes. In their systematic review of the impact of the gender composition of community-based forestry and fisheries resource-user groups on conservation outcomes, Leisher et al. (2016) find that women’s participation in user groups correlates with a range of improvements in local natural resource governance and conservation (annex table 1). The participation of women, especially from poor and landless households, in the executive committees of forest- user groups in Nepal and India has improved ecological forest outcomes and distributional equity (Agarwal 2009, 2010). Considering that 96 percent of Nepal’s forests, representing 1,664,918 ha, are community forests (Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation 2012, cited in Poudel, Johnson and Mishra 2014) and that over 23 million ha of forestland are under community-based management in India alone (RECOFTC 2013), the potential governance and conservation impacts of achieving greater gender equality in participation in forest- user groups in these countries—and worldwide—are momentous. Relatedly, the devolution of forest rights and governance to communities, when attention is given to the power and social relations that shape these governance structures, offers immense potential to strengthen gender equality and women’s empowerment. In their literature review on women’s land rights and poverty reduction, Meinzen-Dick et al. (2019) found strong evidence for a positive relationship between women’s land and forest tenure and women’s bargaining power and decision-making on consumption; and a high level of agreement, but less evidence, on the relationship between women’s land rights and their empowerment (annex table 2). Tseng et al. (2021) found strong support for a positive relationship between women’s tenure and empowerment, which correlates with additional positive outcomes in food systems (Quisumbing et al. 2023). Worldwide, between 2002 and 2017, forestland owned by or designated for communities increased from 10 to 15 percent, with most gains occurring in LMICs—this devolution of forest rights will continue globally (RRI 2018). Placing measures to increase equality at the heart of these processes can open unique opportunities for the recognition of rural women and forest dwellers as legitimate rights holders of forestland, which holds transformative potential for their empowerment at individual and community levels. As noted above, postharvest fish losses have a gendered dimension tied to gender norms that dictate the nature and reach of women’s participation in the fishing sector. Coupling gender-sensitive postharvest innovations with GTAs that help lift some of these normative constraints has supported a reduction in fish losses and favored social changes linked to women’s empowerment (Cole et al. 2020, see table 1 at the end of section 5). Africa loses over a quarter of its fish harvest (Affognon et al. 2015), and projects a drop in per-capita fish consumption (FAO 2020a) linked to population growth (over half of global population growth by 2050 is expected in Africa (UNDESA 2017)). Given concerns about poverty reduction, gender equality and food security (Chan et al. 2019), reducing postharvest fish losses through bundled (social and technical) innovations can have significant impacts on gender equality and improve the nutrition security and livelihoods of millions of socioeconomically marginalized people in Africa and elsewhere (Kruijssen et al. 2021). Furthermore, fishing 24 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 communities are highly vulnerable to climate change as shifting weather patterns impact fish stocks and imperil coastal industries and homes (FAO 2022; Williams et al. 2019; IPCC 2021). Women’s knowledge, priorities, perspectives and empowerment can contribute to building diverse, holistic adaptive approaches and resilience to climate and other kinds of shocks. In one example from Brazil, fisherwomen’s empowerment in leadership was linked to reduced impact on fishing communities from the COVID-19 pandemic (Silva et al. 2022). Livestock development can be a key strategy for reducing gender inequalities and bolstering household resilience, particularly under a changing climate (Acosta, Nicolli and Karfakis 2021; McKune et al. 2015). Animal-source foods (e.g., eggs, dairy and meat) are especially important for pregnant women, babies in their first 1,000 days of life and young children. Even slightly increasing the consumption of animal-sourced foods among vulnerable groups can substantially reduce malnutrition and childhood stunting. Small livestock (especially poultry), which are commonly managed by women, provide low-investment opportunities for enhancing household nutrition (especially through increased consumption of eggs) (Smith 2016). Closing gender gaps in the livestock sector will also increase social welfare and educational outcomes for women and girls given that women’s livestock assets provide a regular source of income that can be used to pay for school or medical fees. Some zoonoses are transmitted to humans through food, and women are more exposed to zoonotic diseases than men due to their customary food-preparation and animal-care roles (Mulema et al. 2020). Although women and girls are often tasked with the care of sick animals as an extension of their care work, women livestock keepers (especially from marginalized ethnic and low-caste groups) are often excluded from accessing livestock extension services and vaccines. Increasing women’s access to livestock extension, including information on disease transmission and training in safe food-processing practices, can reduce the burden of zoonotic diseases (Serra et al. 2018), improve the health of livestock, and decrease time required to manage livestock, allowing women and girls to pursue other activities. In one example from Kenya, east coast fever vaccination in cattle translated to increased school attendance by girls while simultaneously increasing household income and alleviating poverty (Marsh et al. 2016). 7. Key policy messages and recommendations Pathways to equality and empowerment are complex, context-specific and can be mutually reinforcing. Generating a deep and lasting change in gender equality will require multipronged strategies that advance change in tandem along the four pathways described. The successful strategies described above substantiate that the following measures can be particularly transformative measures: 1. Strengthening the agency of women and marginalized groups by supporting collective action and advocacy: This requires investing in inclusive resource-user groups (and subgroups), networks and multitiered associations able to advocate for the interests and rights of less powerful groups, and in equitable representation, leadership and influence in governance. A necessary step is recognizing the knowledge, labor and skills of all genders and of marginalized groups across the focal sectors, and these groups’ legitimacy in related decision-making processes at all levels. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 25 2. Equitably improving access to and control over resources and assets: For forest- dependent people, securing rights to land and forests is particularly transformative, and ensuring that women’s rights are secured within collective rights is critical. So, too, is ensuring equitable access to and control over other collective resources, such as fish or pastures. To support the effective use, processing, management and trade of products from forests, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock, women’s access to and control over private or collectively owned assets (such as means of transport, fishing and aquaculture equipment, and processing and storage technologies) must also be enhanced. Improving access to complementary services (Kosec et al. 2023)—such as extension and financial services—is needed for rural people in general, but particular investments are needed to close the gender gap in these services to allow women to develop their enterprises and access higher value markets. Measures are also needed to safeguard against the risks of poor women losing access to resources that become more valuable and sought by more powerful groups. 3. Promoting normative shifts to lift barriers to women’s participation, voice and influence; access to and control over resources; and benefits across sectors: Behavior-change- communication and participatory and dialogic approaches that prompt critical reflection and action on norms can expand the range of acceptable livelihood options for women (and men) across sectors. These approaches must acknowledge the interdependence of women and men in livelihood systems, and engage with all gender (and marginalized) groups as change agents. 4. Creating, funding and implementing gender-responsive and gender-transformative policies, regulations and institutions: Societies need national-level forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, livestock and related (e.g., climate, biodiversity) policies, legal frameworks and institutions that address gender inequality and advance empowerment alongside other outcomes (dietary, economic and environmental) (Lecoutere et al. 2022). These policies must be coherent with national gender policies, and across sectors within and beyond agriculture. The growing number of public policies integrating gender considerations (see section 5.4), and those espoused by influential multilateral (e.g., World Bank and United Nations agencies), philanthropic or private institutions that shape the global policy context, must be accompanied by political will, adequate resourcing and institutional capacities to implement them. 5. Improving data systems to recognize and account for the contributions of women and socioeconomically marginalized groups across sectors: This paper has illuminated a significant lack of historic sex-disaggregated data to capture changes over time in gender roles, control over resources, benefits and decision-making in the sectors examined. Closing these significant data gaps calls for concerted investments, conceptual and definitional advances, and improved quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Data systems should account for unpaid and informal activities, norms, power relations, quality of participation, and gendered costs and benefits in these sectors. Finally, changes across the four pathways of change in gender equality elucidated above must be carefully and longitudinally monitored (Quisumbing et al. 2023). Pursued together, these measures can help uproot systemic inequalities to release the immense potential that forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock hold for enhancing and sustaining equality and empowerment globally. 26 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 REFERENCES Acosta, Alejandro, Francesco Nicolli, and Panagiotis Karfakis. 2021. “Coping with Climate Shocks: The Complex Role of Livestock Portfolios.” World Development 146: 105546. Acosta, Daniel, Nargiza Ludgate, Sarah L. McKune, and Sandra Russo. 2022. “Who Has Access to Livestock Vaccines? Using the Social-Ecological Model and Intersectionality Frameworks to Identify the Social Barriers to Peste des Petits Ruminants Vaccines in Karamoja, Uganda.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.831752. Acosta, Mariola, Margit van Wessel, Severine Van Bommel, Edidah L. Ampaire, Jennifer Twyman, Laurence Jassogne, and Peter H. Feindt. 2020. “What Does it Mean to Make a ‘Joint’ Decision? Unpacking Intra-household Decision Making in Agriculture: Implications for Policy and Practice.” The Journal of Development Studies 56 (6): 1210–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00220388.2019.1650169. Adam, Rahma I., Cynthia McDougall, Kate Bevitt, Sarah Freed, Chelcia Gomese, Abigail Johnson, Jacqueline Lau, et al. 2021. “Four Pathways to Achieve Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Small-scale Fisheries and Aquaculture: Insights from FISH Research.” FISH Gender Report. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish. Program Report: FISH-2021-28. https://hdl. handle.net/20.500.12348/5108. Adeogun, Mercy Opeoluwa, and Oludare Akanni Adeogun. 2015. “Determinants of Use of Indigenous Fish Processing Practices in Maritime and Inland States of Nigeria.” Journal of Agricultural Extension 19: 24–34. https://doi.org/10.4314/jae.v19i1.2. Affognon, Hippolyte, Christopher Mutungi, Pascal Sanginga, and Christian Borgemeister. 2015. “Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis.” World Development 66: 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.002. Agarwal, Bina. 2001. “Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework.” World Development 29 (10): 1623–1648. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3. Agarwal, Bina. 2002. “The Hidden Side of Group Behaviour: A Gender Analysis of Community Forestry Groups.” In Group Behaviour and Development: Is the Market Destroying Cooperation?, edited by Judith Heyer, Frances Stewart, and Rosemary Thorp, 185–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Agarwal, Bina. 2009. “Gender and Forest Conservation: The Impact of Women’s Participation in Community Forest Governance.” Ecological Economics 68: 2785–2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .ecolecon.2009.04.025. Agarwal, Bina. 2010. Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy of Women’s Presence within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.https://doi.org/1093 /acprof:oso/9780199569687.001.0001. Agarwal, Bina. 2015. “The Power of Numbers in Gender Dynamics: Illustrations from Community Forest Groups.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150 .2014.936007. Agrawal, Arun, Ashwini Chhatre, and Rebecca Hardin. 2008. “Changing Governance of the World’s Forests.” Science, New Series 320 (5882): 1460–1462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155369. Aguilar Revelo, Lorena. 2021. “Prácticas Promisorias que Promueven la Igualdad de Género y la Autonomía de las Mujeres en la Respuesta al Cambio Climático en América Latina y el Caribe.” Documentos de Proyectos (LC/TS.2021/110). Santiago: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). https://hdl.handle.net/11362/47270. Akintola, Shehu Latunji, and Kafayat Adetoun Fakoya. 2017. “Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Traditional Post-harvest Practice and the Quest for Food and Nutritional Security in Nigeria.” Agriculture & Food Security 6: 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0110-z. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 27 Akter, Rumana, Nobuyuki Yagi, Hiroaki Sugino, Shakuntala H. Thilsted, Shibani Ghosh, Sabi Gurung, Katherine Heneveld, Robin Shrestha, and Patrick Webb. 2020. “Household Engagement in Both Aquaculture and Horticulture is Associated with Higher Diet Quality than Either Alone.” Nutrients 12 (9): 2705. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092705. Alkire, Sabina, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Amber Peterman, Agnes Quisumbing, Greg Seymour, and Ana Vaz. 2013. “The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index.” World Development 52: 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007. Aregu, Lemlem, Ika Darnhofer, Azage Tegegne, Dirk Hoekstra, and Maria Wurzinger. 2016. “The Impact of Gender-Blindness on Social-Ecological Resilience: The Case of a Communal Pasture in the Highlands of Ethiopia.” Ambio 45 (3): 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016 -0846-x. Arora-Jonsson, Seema. 2012. “Beyond Knowledge and Information: Making Sense of Local Management.” In Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook 2, edited by Deborah Rigling Gallagher, 808–814. SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452218601.n84. Arthur, Robert I., Daniel J. Skerritt, Anna Schuhbauer, Naazia Ebrahim, Richard M. Friend, and U. Rashid Sumaila. 2022. “Small-scale Fisheries and Local Food Systems: Transformations, Threats and Opportunities.” Fish and Fisheries 23: 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12602. Asher, Kiran, and Gwen Varley. 2018. “Gender in the Jungle: A Critical Assessment of Women and Gender in Current (2014–2016) Forestry Research.” International Forestry Review 20 (2): 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818823767537. Astuti, Rini, and Andrew McGregor. 2016. “Indigenous Land Claims or Green Grabs? Inclusions and Exclusions within Forest Carbon Politics in Indonesia.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (2): 445–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1197908. Badstue, Lone B., Patti Petesch, Shelley Feldman, Gordon Prain, Marlène Elias, and Paula Kantor. 2018. “Qualitative, Comparative, and Collaborative Research at Large Scale: An Introduction to GENNOVATE.” Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 3 (1): 1–27. https://hdl.handle .net/10568/99066. Badstue, Lone, Marlène Elias, Victor Kommerell, Patti Petesch, Gordon Prain, Rhiannon Pyburn, and Anya Umantseva. 2020. “Making Room for Manoeuvre: Addressing Gender Norms to Strengthen the Enabling Environment for Agricultural Innovation.” Development in Practice 30 (4): 541–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2020.1757624. Bain, Carmen, Elizabeth Ransom, and Iim Halimatusa’diyah. 2020. “Dairy Livestock Interventions for Food Security in Uganda: What are the Implications for Women’s Empowerment?” Rural Sociology 85 (4): 991–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12332. Baltenweck, Isabelle, Alessandra Galiè, Elizabeth Katz, Erin Eldermire, Esther Achandi, Esther Njuguna-Mungai, Leah Gichuki et al. 2021. “What Can We Learn from the Literature about Livestock Interventions and Women’s Empowerment?” ILRI Research Brief. https://hdl.handle .net/10568/117227. Banana, Abwoli Y., Mohamed Bukenya, Eusobio Arinaitwe, Betty Birabwa, and Sylvester Ssekindi. 2012. “Gender, Tenure and Community Forests in Uganda.” Vol. 87. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Bandiaky-Badji, Solange. 2011. “Gender Equity in Senegal’s Forest Governance History: Why Policy and Representation Matter.” International Forestry Review 13 (2): 177–194. https://doi .org/10.1505/146554811797406624. Basu, Pratyusha, Alessandra Galiè, and Isabelle Baltenweck. 2019. “Presence and Property: Gendered Perspectives on Participation in a Dairy Development Program in Kenya and Uganda.” Women’s Studies International Forum 74: 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2019.02.011. Basu, Pratyusha, and Alessandra Galiè. 2021. “Nested Scales of Sustainable Livelihoods: Gendered Perspectives on Small-scale Dairy Development in Kenya.” Sustainability 13 (16): 9396. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13169396. Baynes, Jack, John Herbohn, Carl Smith, Robert Fisher, and David Bray. 2015. “Key Factors which Influence the Success of Community Forestry in Development Countries.” Global Environmental Change 35: 226–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011. 28 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Beck, Tony, and Cathy Nesmith. 2001. “Building on Poor People’s Capacities: The Case of Common Property Resources in India and West Africa.” World Development 29 (1): 119–33. https://doi .org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00089-9. Béné, Christophe, and Sonja Merten. 2008. “Women and Fish-for-sex: Transactional Sex, HIV/AIDS and Gender in African Fisheries.” World Development 36 (5): 875–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .worlddev.2007.05.010. Bernard, Tanguy, Cheryl Doss, Melissa Hidrobo, Jessica Hoel, and Caitlin Kieran. 2020. “Ask Me Why: Patterns of Intrahousehold Decision-making.” World Development 125. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104671. Bonis-Profumo, Gianna, Domingas do Rosario Pereira, Julie Brimblecombe, and Natasha Stacey. 2022. “Gender Relations in Livestock Production and Animal-source Food Acquisition and Consumption Among Smallholders in Rural Timor-Leste: A Mixed-methods Exploration.” Journal of Rural Studies 89: 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.027. Bose, Purabi. 2013. “Individual Tenure Rights, Citizenship, and Conflicts: Outcomes from Tribal India’s Forest Governance.” Forest Policy and Economics 33: 71–79.Bose, Purabi, Anne M. Larson, Susana Lastarria-Cornhiel, Claudia Radel, Marianne Schmink, Birgit Schmook, and Verónica Vázquez-García. 2017. “Women’s Rights to Land and Communal Forest Tenure: A Way Forward for Research and Policy Agenda in Latin America.” Women’s Studies International Forum 65: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.10.005. Bosma, Roel H., Thi Dien Nguyen, Lorna M. Calumpang, and Sef Alba Carandang. 2019. “Gender Action Plans in the Aquaculture Value Chain: What’s Missing?” Reviews in Aquaculture 11 (14): 1297–1307. Bradford, Kirsten, and Robert Eliakim Katikiro. 2019. “Fighting the Tides: A Review of Gender and Fisheries in Tanzania.” Fisheries Research 216: 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.fishres.2019.04.003. Brugere, Cecile, and Meryl Williams. 2017. “Profile: Women in Aquaculture.” Gender Aqua Fish. https://genderaquafish.org/portfolio/women-in-aquaculture/. Bryan, E., Alvi, M., Huyer, S., and Ringler, C. 2023. Addressing Gender Inequalities and Strengthening Women’s Agency for Climate-resilient and Sustainable Food Systems. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #013. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl .handle.net/10568/129709. Bullock, Renee, and Amare Tegbaru. 2019. “Women’s Agency in Changing Contexts: A Case Study of Innovation Processes in Western Kenya.” Geoforum 105: 78–88.https://doi.org/10.1016/j .geoforum.2019.07.007. Bullock, Renee, and Todd Crane. 2021. “Young Women’s and Men’s Opportunity Spaces in Dairy Intensification in Kenya.” Rural Sociology 86 (4): 777–808. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi /pdfdirect/10.1111/ruso.12385. Byrd, Kendra A., Lauren Pincus, Monica M. Pasqualino, Farayi Muzofa, and Steven M. Cole. 2021. “Dried Small Fish Provide Nutrient Densities Important for the First 1000 Days.” Maternal & Child Nutrition 17 (4): p.e13192. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13192. Carter, Natalie Ann, Sally Humphries, Delia Grace, Emily Awuor Ouma, and Catherine Elizabeth Dewey. 2017. “Men and Women Farmers’ Perceptions of Adopting Improved Diets for Pigs in Uganda: Decision-making, Income Allocation, and Intra-household Strategies that Mitigate Relative Disadvantage.” Agriculture & Food Security 6 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186 /s40066-017-0095-7. Castine, Sarah A., Jessica R. Bogard, Benoy K. Barman, Manjurul Karim, Mokarrom Hossain, Mrityunjoy Kunda, A. B. M. Mahfuzul Haque, Michael J. Phillips, and Shakuntala H. Thilsted. 2017. “Homestead Pond Polyculture can Improve Access to Nutritious Small Fish.” Food Security 9 (4): 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0699-6. Catacutan, Delia, and Farhat Naz. 2015. “Gender Roles, Decision-making and Challenges to Agroforestry Adoption in Northwest Vietnam.” International Forestry Review 17 (4): 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815816002266. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 29 CCAFS (CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security). 2022. “Kenya Develops and Implements a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) in the Dairy Sector.” CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, May 28, 2022. Chan, Chin Yee, Nhuong Tran, Shanali Pethiyagoda, Charles C. Crissman, Timothy B. Sulser, and Michael J. Phillips. 2019. “Prospects and Challenges of Fish for Food Security in Africa.” Global Food Security 20: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.12.002. Chanamuto, Nicola J.C., and Stephen J.G. Hall. 2015. “Gender Equality, Resilience to Climate Change, and the Design of Livestock Projects for Rural Livelihoods.” Gender & Development 23 (3): 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2015.1096041. Chomba, Susan, Thorsten Treue, and Fergus Sinclair. 2015. “The Political Economy of Forest Entitlements: Can Community Based Forest Management Reduce Vulnerability at the Forest Margin?” Forest Policy and Economics 58: 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.011. Choudhury, Afrina, and Nazia Tanzina. 2020. “ICTs Instrumental in Scaling Women’s Employment Model in Fishing Communities.” In Information and Communication Technologies for Small-Scale Fisheries (ICT4SSF) – A Handbook for Fisheries Stakeholders. In Support of the Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, edited by FAO and WorldFish. Bangkok. https://doi .org/10.4060/cb2030en. Choudhury, Afrina, and Paige Castellanos. 2020. “Empowering Women through Farmer Field Schools.” In Routledge Handbook of Gender and Agriculture, edited by Carolyn E. Sachs, Leif Jensen, Paige Castellanos, and Kathleen Sexsmith, 251–262. Routledge. Choudhury, Afrina, Cynthia McDougall, Surendran Rajaratnam, and C. M. Y. Park. 2017. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture: Two Case Studies from Bangladesh. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/270. Choudhury, Afrina, Surendran Rajaratnam, and Cynthia McDougall. 2022. “The Importance of Sex- Disaggregated and Gender Data to a Gender-Inclusive COVID-19 Response in the Aquatic Food Systems.” In Gender, Food and COVID-19: Global Stories of Harm and Hope, edited by Paige Castellanos, Carolyn E. Sachs, and Ann R. Tickamyer, 119–125. Routledge. Christie, Neha, and Shambu Prasad Chebrolu. 2020. “Creating Space for Women Leadership and Participation Through Innovative Strategies: A Case of Tribal Women’s Dairy Cooperatives in Gujarat.” In Cooperatives and Social Innovation, edited by D. Rajasekhar, R. Manjula, and T. Paranjothi, 235–247. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8880-8_16. Cole, Steven M., Alexander M. Kaminski, Cynthia McDougall, Alexander S. Kefi, Pamela A. Marinda, Modern Maliko, and Johans Mtonga. 2020. “Gender Accommodative Versus Transformative Approaches: A Comparative Assessment within a Post-harvest Fish Loss Reduction Intervention.” Gender, Technology and Development 24 (1): 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09718524.2020.1729480. Cole, Steven M., Cynthia McDougall, Alexander M. Kaminski, Alexander S. Kefi, Alex Chilala, and Gethings Chisule. 2018. “Postharvest Fish Losses and Unequal Gender Relations: Drivers of the Socialecological Trap in the Barotse Floodplain Fishery, Zambia.” Ecology and Society 2 (23): 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09950-230218. Coleman, Eric A., and Esther Mwangi. 2015. “Conflict, Cooperation, and Institutional Change on the Commons.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 855–865. https://doi.org/10.1111 /ajps.12137. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Markus Ihalainen. 2018. “Making Sense of ‘Intersectionality’: A Manual for Lovers of People and Forests.” Occasional Paper 184. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf _files/OccPapers/OP-184.pdf. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Marlène Elias. 2016. “Introduction.” In Gender and Forests, Climate Change, Tenure, Value Chains and Emerging Issues, edited by Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Marlène Elias, 1–25. New York: Routledge. 30 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Marlène Elias, and R. Jamnadass. 2015. “Women and Men in Tropical Dry Forests: A Preliminary Review.” International Forestry Review 17 (2): 70–90. https://doi .org/10.1505/146554815815834877. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, Marlène Elias, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Susan Stevens Hummel. 2017. The Earthscan Reader on Gender and Forests. Oxon: Routledge. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce. 2021. Masculinities in Forests: Representations of Diversity. Taylor & Francis. Colgan, Jodie, Cynthia McDougall, Una Murray, Charles Spillane, Peter McKeown, and Hossain Emdad. 2019. “Can Climate-smart Aquaculture Enable Women’s Empowerment in Rural Bangladesh?” Program Brief: FISH-2019-11. Penang: CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/3842. Colverson, Kathleen Earl, Lacey Coble-Harris, Alessandra Galiè, Emily V. Moore, Olga Munoz, Sarah L. McKune, Nitya Singh, and Ran Mo. 2020. “Evolution of a Gender Tool: WEAI, WELI and Livestock Research.” Global Food Security 26: 100375. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.gfs.2020.100375. Crossland, Mary, Ana Maria Paez Valencia, Tim Pagella, Christine Magaju, Esther Kiura, Leigh Winoweicki, and Fergus Sinclair. 2021. “Onto the Farm, into the Home: How Intrahousehold Gender Dynamics Shape Land Restoration in Eastern Kenya.” Ecological Restoration 39 (1): 90–107. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.39.1-2.90. da Costa, Fernanda Vieira, Mariana Fernandes Monteiro Guimarães, and Maria Cristina Teixeira Braga Messias. 2021. “Gender Differences in Traditional Knowledge of Useful Plants in a Brazilian Community.” PloS One 16 (7): e0253820. DANIDA, John Rand, and Finn Tarp. 2009. “Impact of an aquaculture extension project in Bangladesh.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 1(2): 130–146. https://doi .org/10.1080/19439340902918110. Davis, Kristin, Steven Franzel, and David J. Spielman. 2019. “Extension Options for Better Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction: A Selected Review 2012-2015 [version 1; not peer reviewed].” Gates Open Research 3: 386. https://doi.org/10.21955/gatesopenres.1115095.1. DCC (Dirección de Cambio Climático). 2020. “Contribución Nacionalmente Determinada 2020.” San Jose, Costa Rica. https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Contribucion -Nacionalmente-Determinada-de-Costa-Rica-2020-Version-Completa.pdf. de Pryck, Jennie Dey, Marlène Elias, and Bimbika Sijapati Basnett. 2018. “Globalization and Employment in Forests and Tree Product Value Chains: Are Women Losing Out?” In Forestry in the Midst of Global Changes, edited by Christine Farcy, Eduardo Rojas-Briales, and Inazio Martinez de Arano, 347–380. Boca Raton: CRC Press. de Siqueira, Ludmila P., Anazelia M. Tedesco, Paula Meli, Anita Diederichsen, and Pedro H. S Brancalion. 2021. “Gender Inclusion in Ecological Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 29 (7): e13497. Djoudi, Houria, and Maria Brockhaus. 2011. “Is Adaptation to Climate Change Gender Neutral? Lessons from Communities Dependent on Livestock and Forests in Northern Mali.” International Forestry Review 13 (2): 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811797406606. Dumas, Sarah E., Abena Maranga, Patrick Mbullo, Shalean Collins, Pauline Wekesa, Maricianah Onono, and Sera L. Young. 2018. “‘Men Are in Front at Eating Time, but Not When It Comes to Rearing the Chicken’: Unpacking the Gendered Benefits and Costs of Livestock Ownership in Kenya.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin 39 (1): 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572117737428. Efficiency for Access. 2020. “Solar-Powered Technology to Level the Playing Field for Women and Girls in World’s Poorest Countries.” Efficiency for Access, October 11, 2020. https:// efficiencyforaccess.org/updates/solar-powered-technology-to-level-the-playing-field-for -women-and-girls-in-worlds-poorest-countries-1. El-Azzazy, Mona. 2019. “Street Vending Challenges and Opportunities: The Case of Women Fish Vendors in Fayoum.” American University, Master’s Thesis. Cairo: AUC Knowledge Fountain. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 31 Elias, M., Zaremba, H., Tavenner, K., Ragasa, C., Paez Valencia, A.M., Choudhury, A., and de Haan, N. 2023. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #012. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129708. Elias, Marlène, Ana Maria Paez Valencia, Markus Ihalainen, and Iliana Monterroso. 2021b. “Advancing Gender Equality and Social Inclusion.” FTA Highlights of a Decade 2011–2021 series. Highlight No.15. Bogor: CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA). https://doi .org/10.17528/cifor/008225. Elias, Marlène, and Seema Arora-Jonsson. 2017. “Negotiating Across Difference: Gendered Exclusions and Cooperation in the Shea Value Chain.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35 (1): 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816657084. Elias, Marlène, Matt Kandel, Stephanie Mansourian, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Mary Crossland, Deepa Joshi, Juliet Kariuki, Lynn C. Lee, Pamela McElwee, Amrita Sen, Emily Sigman, Ruchika Singh, Emily M. Adamczyk, Thomas Addoah, Genevieve Agaba, Rahinatu S. Alare, Will Anderson, Indika Arulingam, SGjids kung Vanessa Bellis, Regina Birner, Sanjiv De Silva, Mark Dubois, Marie Duraisami, Mike Featherstone, Bryce Gallant, Arunima Hakhu, Robyn Irvine, Esther Kiura, Christine Magaju, Cynthia McDougall, Gwiisihlgaa Daniel McNeill, Harini Nagendra, Tran Huu Nghi, Daniel K. Okamoto, Ana Maria Paez Valencia, Tim Pagella, Ondine Pontier, Miranda Post, Gary W. Saunders, Kate Schreckenberg, Karishma Shelar, Fergus Sinclair, Rajendra S. Gautam, Nathan B. Spindel, Hita Unnikrishnan, Gulxa taa’a gaagii ng.aang Nadine Wilson, and Leigh Winowiecki. 2022. “Ten people-centered rules for socially sustainable ecosystem restoration.” Restoration Ecology 30 (4): e13574. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13574. Elias, Marlène, Steven Michael Cole, Agnes Quisumbing, Ana Maria Paez Valencia, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Jennifer Twyman. 2021a. “Assessing Women’s Empowerment in Agricultural Research.” In Advancing Gender Equality Through Agricultural and Environmental Research: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Rhiannon Pyburn, and Anouka van Eerdewijk, 329–364. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Elias, Marlène. 2015. “Gender, Knowledge Sharing and Management of Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) in Central-West Burkina Faso.” Journal of Rural Studies 38: 27–38. doi.org/10.1016 /j.jrurstud.2015.01.006. Elmhirst, Rebecca, Mia Siscawati, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Dian Ekowati. 2017. “Gender and Generation in Engagements with Oil Palm in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: Insights from Feminist Political Ecology.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (6): 1135–1157. Evans, Alice. 2014. “‘Women Can Do What Men Can Do’: The Causes and Consequences of Growing Flexibility in Gender Divisions of Labour in Kitwe, Zambia.” Journal of Southern African Studies 40 (5): 981–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2014.946214. Evans, Kristen, Anne Larson, Esther Mwangi, Peter Cronkleton, Tendayi Maravanyika, Xochilt Hernández, Pilar Müller, et al. 2014. Field Guide to Adaptive Collaborative Management and Improving Women’s Participation. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005085. Evans, Kristen, Anne M. Larson, and Selmira Flores. 2020. “Learning To Learn in Tropical Forests: Training Field Teams in Adaptive Collaborative Management, Monitoring and Gender.” International Forestry Review 22 (2): 189–198. FAO and UNEP. 2020. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, Biodiversity and People. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://doi.org/10.4060 /ca8642en. FAO. 2012. “Invisible Guardians – Women manage livestock diversity. FAO Animal Production and Health.” Paper No. 174. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/i3018e/i3018e00.pdf. FAO. 2013. Good Practice Policies to Eliminate Gender Inequalities in Fish Value Chains. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/i3553e/i3553e. pdf. FAO. 2015. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/voluntary-guidelines-small-scale-fisheries/en/. 32 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 FAO. 2016a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the World’s Forests Changing? Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3 /i4793e/i4793e.pdf. FAO. 2016b. “Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry: A Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness.” FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/3/b-i5415e.pdf. FAO. 2016c. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https:// www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/2c8bcf47-2214-4aeb-95b0-62ddef8a982a/. FAO. 2017. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture in Bangladesh and Indonesia: Insights from Four Case Studies. Fact sheet. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/a-i7113e.pdf. FAO. 2020a. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Sustainability in Action. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en. FAO. 2020b. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en. FAO. 2022. Gender, Agrifood Value Chains and Climate-Resilient Agriculture in Small Island Developing States. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Faridah Aini, Muhammad, Marlène Elias, Hugo Lamers, Umar Shariah, Pearlycia Brooke, and Hussin Mohd Hafizul. 2017. “Evaluating the Usefulness and Ease of Use of Participatory Tools for Forestry and Livelihoods Research in Sarawak, Malaysia.” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 26 (1): 29–46. Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Paula Kantor, Afrina Choudhury, Shwn McGuire, and Nasrin Sultana. 2016. “Gender Relations and Improved Technologies in Small Household Ponds in Bangladesh: Rolling Out Novel Learning Approaches.” Asian Fisheries Science 29S: 161–178. Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Paula Kantor, Froukje Kruijssen, Catherine Longley, and Kathleen Earl Colverson. 2015. “Gender Integration in Livestock and Fisheries Value Chains: Emerging Good Practices from Analysis to Action.” International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 11 (3–4): 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2015.074093. Farnworth, Cathy Rozel. 2015. “Gender, Livestock and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Costa Rica.” CCAFS Working Paper no. 149. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. 2020. “Mothers See Healthier Children in the ‘One Egg Per Day’ Project in Burkina Faso.” University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, February 24, 2020. https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/lsil/2020/02/24/mothers -see-healthier-children-in-the-one-egg-per-day-project-in-burkina-faso/. Fiorella, Kathryn J., Carol S. Camlin, Charles R. Salmen, Ruth Omondi, Matthew D. Hickey, Dan O. Omollo, Erin M. Milner, Elizabeth A. Bukusi, Lia C. H. Fernald, and Justin S. Brashares. 2015. “Transactional Fish-for-sex Relationships Amid Declining Fish Access in Kenya.” World Development 74: 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.015. Flintan, Fiona E. 2021. “Pastoral Women, Tenure and Governance.” ILRI Research Report 92. https://doi .org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134947. Funge-Smith, Simon, and Abigail Bennett. 2019. “A Fresh Look at Inland Fisheries and Their Role in Food Security and Livelihoods.” Fish and Fisheries 20 (6): 1176–1195. https://doi.org/10.1111 /faf.12403. Galiè, Alessandra, Annet Mulema, Maria A. Mora Benard, Sheila N. Onzere, and Kathleen E. Colverson. 2015. “Exploring Ender Perceptions of Resource Ownership and Their Implications for Food Security Among Rural Livestock Owners in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua.” Agriculture & Food Security 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0021-9. Galiè, Alessandra, Dina Najjar, Patti Petesch, Lone Badstue, and Cathy Rozel Farnworth. 2022. “Livestock Innovations, Social Norms, and Women’s Empowerment in the Global South.” Sustainability 14 (7): 3741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073741. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 33 Galiè, Alessandra, Nils Teufel, Amy Webb, Girard Isabelle, Baltenweck Paula, Dominguez-Salasa, Mindy J. Price, Rebecca Jones, Ben Lukuyu, Luke Korir, Ilana G. Raskind, Kristie Smith, and Kathryn M. Yount. 2019b. “Women’s Empowerment, Food Security and Nutrition of Pastoral Communities in Tanzania.” Global Food Security 23: 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.gfs.2019.04.005. Galiè, Alessandra, Nils Teufel, L. Korir, Isabelle Baltenweck, A. Webb Girard, Paula Dominguez-Salas, and K. M. Yount. 2019a. “The Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index.” Social Indicators Research 142 (2): 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1934-z. Gallina, Ambra. 2016. “Gender Dynamics in Dairy Production in Kenya: A Literature Review.” CCAFS Working Paper no. 182. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/77727. Gender at Work. n.d. “Gender at Work Framework.” https://genderatwork.org/analytical-framework/. Gilmour, Don. 2016. Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry a Review of Its Extent and Effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper. Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/a-i5415e.pdf. Giri, Kalpana, and Ika Darnhofer. 2010a. “Outmigrating Men: A Window of Opportunity for Women’s Participation in Community Forestry?” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25 (sup9): 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.506769. Giri, Kalpana, and Ika Darnhofer. 2010b. “Nepali Women Using Community Forestry as a Platform for Social Change.” Society and Natural Resources 23 (12): 1216–1229. https://doi .org/10.1080/08941921003620533 Gitungwa, Henriette, C. R. Gustafson, E. Y. Jimenez, E. W. Peterson, M. Mwanzalila, Asha Makweta, E. Komba, R. R. Kazwala, J. A. K. Mazet, and Elizabeth VanWormer. 2021. “Female and Male-controlled Livestock Holdings Impact Pastoralist Food Security and Women’s Dietary Diversity.” One Health Outlook 3 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-020-00032-5. Global Forest Coalition. 2021. Gender Justice and Livestock Farming: A Feminist Analysis of Livestock and Forest Policymaking. Asunción: Global Forest Coalition. https://globalforestcoalition.org /wp-content/uploads/2022/02/forestcover-66-EN.pdf. Gonzalez Parrao, Constanza, Shannon Shisler, Marta Moratti, Cem Yavuz, Arnab Acharya, John Eyers, and Birte Snilstveit. 2021. “Aquaculture for Improving Productivity, Income, Nutrition and Women’s Empowerment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 17, e1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1195. Gopal, Nikita, Holly M. Hapke, Kyoko Kusakabe, Surendran Rajaratnam, and Meryl J. Williams. 2020. “Expanding the Horizons for Women in Fisheries and Aquaculture.” Gender, Technology and Development 24 (1): 1–9. Gopal, Nikita, Leela Edwin, and B. Meenakumari. 2014. “Transformation in Gender Roles with Changes in Traditional Fisheries in Kerala, India.” Asian Fisheries Science Special Issue 27S: 67–78. Gumucio T., Arora, D., Twyman, J., Tickamyer, A. R., and Clavijo, M. 2019. “Gender Equality and Trees on Farms: Considerations for Implementation of Climate-Smart Agriculture.” In Gender, Agriculture and Agrarian Transformations, edited by Carolyn E. Sachs, 203–20. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427381. Gumucio, Tatiana, Marina de Almeida Alves, Natalie Orentlicher, and María Camila Hernández Ceballos. 2018. “Analysis of Gender Research on Forest, Tree and Agroforestry Value Chains in Latin America.” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 27 (2): 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2017.1417921 Hallman, Kelly, David Lewis, and Suraiya Begum. 2003. “An Integrated Economic and Social Analysis to Assess the Impact of Vegetable and Fishpond Technologies on Poverty in Rural Bangladesh.” EPTD Discussion Paper No. 112 No. FCND Discussion Paper No. 163. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Harper, Sarah, Dirk Zeller, Melissa Hauzer, Daniel Pauly, and Ussif Rashid Sumaila. 2013. “Women and Fisheries: Contribution to Food Security and Local Economies.” Marine Policy 39: 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.018. 34 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Harper, Sarah, Marina Adshade, Vicky W. Y. Lam, Daniel Pauly, and U. Rashid Sumaila. 2020. “Valuing Invisible Catches: Estimating the Global Contribution by Women to Small-Scale Marine Capture Fisheries Production.” PLoS ONE 15 (3): e0228912. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal .pone.0228912. Harris-Coble, Lacey, Mulubrhan Balehegn, Adegbola T. Adesogan, and Kathleen Colverson. 2022. “Gender and Livestock Feed Research in Developing Countries: A Review.” Agronomy Journal 114 (1): 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20875. Haverhals, Merel, Verina Ingram, Marlène Elias, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Sjoerd Petersen. 2016. “Exploring Gender and Forest, Tree and Agroforestry Value Chains: Evidence and Lessons from a Systematic Review.” CIFOR Infobrief no. 161. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Haysom, Gareth, E. G. A. Olsson, Mirek Dymitrow, Paul Opiyo, Nick Taylor Buck, Michael Oloko, Charlotte Spring, Kristina Fermskog, Karin Ingelhag, Shelley Kotze, and Stephen G. Agong. 2019. “Food Systems Sustainability: An Examination of Different Viewpoints on Food System Change.” Sustainability 11, no. 12: 3337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123337. Hecht, Susanna, Anastasia Lucy Yang, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Christine Padoch, and Nancy L. Peluso. 2015. “People in Motion, Forests in Transition: Trends in Migration, Urbanization, and Remittances and Their Effects on Tropical Forests.” Occasional Paper 142. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Hegde, N., Marlène Elias, H. A. H. Lamers, and M. Hegde. 2017. “Engaging Local Communities in Social Learning for Inclusive Management of Native Fruit Trees in the Central Western Ghats, India.” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 26 (1): 65–83. Herrero, Mario, Delia Grace, Jemimah Njuki, Nancy Johnson, Dolapo Enahoro, Silvi Silvestri, and Mariana C. Rufino. 2013. “The Roles of Livestock in Developing Countries.” Animal 7 (s1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001954Kosec. Hillesland, Marya, Cheryl Doss, and Vanya Slavchevska. 2020. “Who Claims the Rights to Livestock? Exploring Gender Patterns of Asset Holdings in Smallholder Households in Uganda.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 2098. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134962. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts). 2017. Nutrition and Food Systems. Rome: High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf. Hovorka, Alice J. 2012. “Women/Chickens vs. Men/Cattle: Insights on Gender–Species Intersectionality.” Geoforum 43 (4): 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.005. Ickowitz, Amy, Bronwen Powell, Mohammad A. Salim, and Terry C. H. Sunderland. 2014. “Dietary Quality and Tree Cover in Africa.” Global Environmental Change 24: 287–294. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.001. ICRAF. 2020. “Building Back Better: Land Restoration, Gender and Research ‘In’ Development.” ICRAF Podcast, October 9, 2020. https://www.worldagroforestry.org/blog/2020/10/09/podcast -building-back-better-land-restoration-gender-and-research-development. IFAD. 2016. Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering Inclusive Rural Transformation: General Overview. Rome: IFAD. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/publication/asset/39240288. Ihalainen, Markus, Jolien Schure, and Phosiso Sola. 2020. “Where Are the Women? A Review and Conceptual Framework for Addressing Gender Equity in Charcoal Value Chains in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Energy for Sustainable Development 55: 1–12. Ihalainen, Markus, Sumer Shaikh, Gaudiose Mujawamariya, Sarah Mayanja, Sounkoura Adetonah, Katie Tavenner, and Marlène Elias. 2021. “Promise and Contradiction: Value Chain Participation and Women’s Empowerment” In Advancing Gender Equality Through Agricultural and Environmental Research: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Rhiannon Pyburn, and Anouka van Eerdewijk, 147–188. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). ILRI. 2021a. Empowering Women Through Participatory Rangeland Management. Nairobi: ILRI. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117286. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 35 ILRI. 2021b. Losing Livestock, Losing Land, Losing Face: Pastoralist Women and Change in Gujarat, India. Nairobi: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/117283. Ingram, V. J., E. L. Yago-Quattara, Abraham Lartey, Diana Mogre, Jo Wijnands, and Jolanda van den Berg. 2015. Gender Dynamics in Cashew and Shea Value Chains from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Wageningen: LEI Wageningen. Ingram, Verina, Jolien Schure, Julius Chupezi Tieguhong, Ousseynou Ndoye, Abdon Awono, and Donald Midoko Iponga. 2014. “Gender Implications of Forest Product Value Chains in the Congo Basin.” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 23 (1–2): 67–86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi /abs/10.1080/14728028.2014.887610. Ingram, Verina, Merel Haverhals, Sjoerd Petersen, Marlène Elias, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Sola Phosiso. 2016. “Gender and Forest, Tree and Agroforestry Value Chains: Evidence from the Literature.” In Gender and Forests: Climate Change, Tenure, Value Chains, and Emerging Issues, edited by Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Marlène Elias, 221–242. London: Earthscan and CIFOR. IPCC. 2021. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Masson-Delmotte, Valérie, Panmao Zhai, Anna Pirani, Sarah L. Connors, Clotilde Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf. IUCN. 2017. “Gender equity is key to mangrove restoration.” IUCN, July 26, 2017. https://www.iucn .org/news/forests/201707/gender-equity-key-mangrove-restoration. Jahan, K. M., Ben Belton, Hazrat Ali, Goutam Chandra Dhar, and Ismat Ara. 2015. “Aquaculture Technologies in Bangladesh: An Assessment of Technical and Economic Performance and Producer Behavior.” Program Report 2015-52. Penang: WorldFish. Jamnadass, Ramni H., S. McMullin, Miyuki Iiyama, Ian K. Dawson, B. Powell, Céline Termote, A. Ickowitz et al. 2015. “Understanding the Roles of Forests and Tree-Based Systems in Food Provision.” In Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report, 25–49. IUFRO World Series 33. Jasaw, Godfred S., Osamu Saito, Kazuhiko Takeuchi. 2015. “Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) Butter Production and Resource Use by Urban and Rural Processors in Northern Ghana.” Sustainability 7: 3592-3614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043592. Jhaveri, Nayna J. 2020. Forest Tenure Pathways to Gender Equality: A Practitioner’s Guide, edited by Iliana Monterroso, and Anna M Larson. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Jimah, Kipo, and Gundula Fischer. 2021. “‘The Woman has No Right to Sell Livestock’: The Role of Gender Norms in Northern Ghana’s Small Ruminant Value Chains and Implications for Transformative Interventions.” Presentation at the Cultivating Equality Conference, virtual, October 12–15, 2021. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117083. Johnson, Nancy L., Chiara Kovarik, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Jemimah Njuki, and Agnes Quisumbing. 2016. “Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development: Lessons from Eight Projects.” World Development 83: 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.009. Kaaria, Susan, Martha Osorio, Sophie Wagner, and Ambra Gallina. 2016. “Rural Women’s Participation in Producer Organizations: An Analysis of the Barriers That Women Face and Strategies to Foster Equitable and Effective Participation.” Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 1 (2): 148–167. Kaminski, Alexander M., and Steven M. Cole. 2017. “Building a Case for Using Participatory and Gender-Aware Approaches in Postharvest Fish Loss Assessments and Fishery Value Chain Development Interventions.” In Report and Papers Presented at the Fourth Meeting of Professionals/Experts in Support of Fish Safety, Technology, and Marketing in Africa. Elmina, Ghana, November 14–16, 2017. Kantor, Paula, and Froukje Kruijssen. 2014. “Informal Fish Retailing in Rural Egypt: Opportunities to Enhance Income and Work Conditions for Women and Men.” WorldFish Project Report 2014-51. Penang: WorldFish. 36 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Kantor, Paula, Miranda Morgan, and Afrina Choudhury. 2015. “Amplifying Outcomes by Addressing Inequality: The Role of Gender Transformative Approaches in Agricultural Research for Development.” Gender, Technology and Development 19 (3): 292–319. https://hdl.handle .net/20.500.12348/236. Kariuki, Juliet, and Regina Birner. 2021. “Exploring Gender Equity in Ecological Restoration: The Case of a Market-Based Program in Kenya.” Ecological Restoration 39 (1–2): 77–89. https://doi .org/10.3368/er.39.1-2.77. Katothya, Gerald. 2017. “Gender Assessment of Dairy Value Chains: Evidence from Kenya.” Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i6786e/i6786e.pdf. Killian, Bernadeta, and Maija Hyle. 2020. “Women’s Marginalization in Participatory Forest Management: Impacts of Responsibilization in Tanzania.” Forest Policy and Economics 118: 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102252. Kimanzu, Ngolia, Björn Schulte-Herbrüggen, Jessica Clendenning, Linley Chiwona-Karltun, Kyla Krogseng, and Gillian Petrokofsky. 2021. “What Is the Evidence Base Linking Gender with Access to Forests and Use of Forest Resources for Food Security in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Evidence Map.” Forests 12 (8): 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390 /f12081096. Kinati, Wole, and Annet A. Mulema. 2018. Gender Issues in Livestock Production in Ethiopia: A Review of Literature to Identify Potential Entry Points for Gender Responsive Research and Development. Nairobi: ILRI. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/100208/livestockCRP _gender.pdf. Kiptot, Evelyne, and Steven Franzel. 2012. “Gender and Agroforestry in Africa: A Review of Women’s Participation.” Agroforestry Systems 84 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9419-y. Kiptot, Evelyne. 2015. “Gender Roles, Responsibilities, and Spaces: Implications for Agroforestry Research and Development in Africa.” International Forestry Review 17 (S4): 11–21.https://doi .org/0.1505/146554815816086426. Kleiber, Danika, Leila M. Harris, and Amanda C. J. Vincent. 2015. “Gender and Small-Scale Fisheries: A Case for Counting Women and Beyond.” Fish and Fisheries 16 (4): 547–562. https://doi .org/10.1111/faf.12075. Köhler-Rollefson, Ilse. 2012. Invisible Guardians: Women Manage Livestock Diversity (No. 174). Rome: FAO. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/cdd8428e-95bf-534c-9997-f2cb82a6491c/. Kosec, K., Hidrobo, M., Gartaula, H., Van Campenhout, B., and Carrillo, L. 2023. Making Complementary Agricultural Resources, Technologies and Services More Gender Responsive. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #010. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129706. Kristjanson, Patricia, Tamara Bah, Anne Kuriakose, Meerim Shakirova, Gerardo Segura, Katharina Siegmann, and Margaux Granat. 2019. Taking Action on Gender Gaps in Forest Landscapes. Washington, DC: Program on Forests (PROFOR). Kristjanson, Patricia. 2020. “Closing Gender Gaps in Forest Landscape Initiatives.” International Forestry Review 22 (S1): 44–54. Kristjanson, Patti, Ann Waters-Bayer, Nancy Johnson, Annita Tipilda, Jemimah Njuki, Isabelle Baltenweck, Delia Grace, and Susan MacMillan. 2014. “Livestock and Women’s Livelihoods.” In Gender in Agriculture, edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, Amber Peterman, 209–233. Dordrecht: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_9. Kruijssen F., Danielsen K., Newton J., and Braaten Y. 2021. “Gendered aquaculture value chain analysis and development: An analytical framework.” Manual: FISH-2021-27. Penang, Malaysia: CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems. Kruijssen, Froukje, and Julie Newton. 2022. Qualitative tools for the Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries and Aquaculture Index (WEFI). Bayan Lepas, Malaysia: WorldFish. https://hdl.handle .net/20.500.12348/5093. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 37 Kruijssen, Froukje, Cynthia L. McDougall, and Imke J. M. van Asseldonk. 2018. “Gender and Aquaculture Value Chains: A Review of Key Issues and Implications for Research.” Aquaculture 493: 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.038. Larson, A. M., T. Dokken, Amy E. Duchelle, S. Atmadja, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, P. Cronkleton, M. Cromberg, W. Sunderlin, A. Awono, and G. Selaya. 2015. “The Role of Women in Early REDD+ Implementation: Lessons for Future Engagement.” International Forestry Review 17 (1): 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554815814725031. Larson, Anne M., and Ganga Ram Dahal. 2012. “Introduction: Forest Tenure Reform: New Resource Rights for Forest-Based Communities?” Conservation and Society 10 (2): 77–90. Larson, Anne M., David Solis, Amy E. Duchelle, Stibniati Atmadja, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Therese Dokken, and Mella Komalasari. 2018. “Gender Lessons for Climate Initiatives: A Comparative Study of REDD+ Impacts on Subjective Wellbeing.” World Development 108: 86–102. Lecoutere, E., Achandi, E., Ampaire, E.L., Fischer, G., Gumucio, T., Najjar, D., and Singaraju, N. 2023. Fostering an Enabling Environment for Equality and Empowerment in Agri-food Systems. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #009. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129705. Lecoutere, E., Kosec, K., Quisumbing, A., Elias, M., Bryan, E., and Puskur, R. 2023. Equality and Empowerment by Gender and Intersecting Social Differentiation in Agri-food Systems: Setting the Stage. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #008. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129704. Leisher, Craig, Gheda Temsah, Francesca Booker, Michael Day, Leah Samberg, Debra Prosnitz, Bina Agarwal et al. 2016. “Does the Gender Composition of Forest and Fishery Management Groups Affect Resource Governance and Conservation Outcomes? A Systematic Map.” Environmental Evidence 5 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0057-8. Lentz, Erin C. 2021. “Food and Agriculture Systems Foresight Study: Implications for Gender, Poverty, and Nutrition.” Q Open 1 (1): qoaa003. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoaa003. Lippe, Rattiya Suddeephong, Shannon Cui, and Jörg Schweinle. 2021. “Estimating Global Forest- Based Employment.” Forests 12 (9): 1219. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091219. Macinnis-Ng, Cate, and Xiuhua Zhao. 2022. “Addressing Gender Inequities in Forest Science and Research.” Forests 13 (3): 400. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030400. MacNeil, Anna, and Samrat Ghosh. 2017. “Gender Imbalance in the Maritime Industry: Impediments, Initiatives and Recommendations.” Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs 9 (1): 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2016.1271262. MacVicar, Isla. 2020. “Fact Check 9: Women Livestock Keepers.” Livestock Data for Decisions (LD4D). Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). https://www.livestockdata.org/data -object/fact-check-9-women-livestock-keepers. Malapit, Hazel, Catherine Ragasa, Elena M. Martinez, Deborah Rubin, Greg Seymour, and Agnes Quisumbing. 2020. “Empowerment in Agricultural Value Chains: Mixed Methods Evidence From the Philippines.” Journal of Rural Studies 76: 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .jrurstud.2020.04.003. Mangubhai, Sangeeta, and Sarah Lawless. 2021. “Exploring Gender Inclusion in Small-Scale Fisheries Management and Development in Melanesia.” Marine Policy 123: 104287. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104287. Marsh, Thomas L., Jonathan Yoder, Tesfaye Deboch, Terry F. McElwain, and Guy H. Palmer. 2016. “Livestock Vaccinations Translate into Increased Human Capital and School Attendance by Girls.” Science Advances 2 (12): e1601410. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126 /sciadv.1601410. Martini, E., J. Tarigan, P. Purnomosidhi, A. Prahmono, M. Surgana, A. Setiawan, Mulyoutami E. Megawati et al. 2011. “Agroforestry and Forestry in Sulawesi Series: Agroforestry Extension Needs at the Community Level in AgFor Project Sites in South and Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Working paper 159. Bogor: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811797406606. 38 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Maukonen, Paulus, Pauline Donn, and Laura K. Snook. 2020. “Addressing Potential Conflict Using Participatory Mapping: Collection of Forest Foods from Timber Trees Around Industrial Concessions in Cameroon.” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3:72. https://doi .org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00072. McDougall, Cynthia, and Mani Ram Banjade. 2015. “Social Capital, Conflict, and Adaptive Collaborative Governance: Exploring the Dialectic.” Ecology and Society 20 (1). https://doi .org/10.5751/ES-07071-200144. McDougall, Cynthia, Lone Badstue, Annet Mulema, Gundula Fischer, Dina Najjar, Rhiannon Pyburn, Marlène Elias et al. 2021. “Toward Structural Change: Gender Transformative Approaches.” In Advancing Gender Equality Through Agricultural and Environmental Research: Past, Present, and Future, Edited by Rhiannon Pyburn, and Anouka van Eerdewijk, 365–401. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293915_10. McDougall, C., Elias, M., Zwanck, D., Diop, K., Simao, J., Galiè, A., Fischer, G., Jumba, H. and Najjar, D. Forthcoming. Fostering gender-transformative change for equality in food systems: a review of methods and strategies at multiple levels. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. McKune, Sarah L., Erica C. Borresen, Alyson G. Young, Thérèse D. Auria Ryley, Sandra L. Russo, Astou Diao Camara, Meghan Coleman, and Elizabeth P. Ryan. 2015. “Climate Change Through a Gendered Lens: Examining Livestock Holder Food Security.” Global Food Security 6: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.05.001. McKune, Sarah, Renata Serra, and Alioune Touré. 2021. “Gender and Intersectional Analysis of Livestock Vaccine Value Chains in Kaffrine, Senegal.” Plos One 16 (7): e0252045. https://doi .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252045. McLeod, Anni, Alessandra Galiè, and Isabelle Baltenweck. 2021. “Gender-Responsive Animal Health Research: A Framework and Checklists for ILRI Researchers.” ILRI Manual 48. Nairobi: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114709. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Agnes Quisumbing, Cheryl Doss, and Sophie Theis. 2019. “Women’s Land Rights as a Pathway to Poverty Reduction: Framework and Review of Available Evidence.” Agricultural Systems 172: 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.009. Miller, Daniel C., Juan Carlos Muñoz-Mora, and Luc Christiaensen. 2017. “Prevalence, Economic Contribution, and Determinants of Trees on Farms Across Sub-Saharan Africa.” Forest Policy and Economics 84: 47–61. https://doi.org/110.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.005. Momtaz, S., M. Asaduzzaman, and Z. Kabir. 2021. “A Gendered Approach to Understanding Climate Change Impacts: Lessons from a Coastal Region of Bangladesh.” In Gender, Climate Change and Livelihoods: Vulnerabilities and Adaptations, edited by Joshua Eastin, Kendra Dupuy, 11–25. Oxfordshire and Boston: CABI. Monterroso, Iliana, Anne M. Larson, Esther Mwangi, Nining Liswanti, and Zoila Cruz-Burga. 2019. “Mobilizing Change for Women Within Collective Tenure Regimes.” n.p.: Resource Equity. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/7440/. Mugisha, Anthony, Elizabeth Kyewalabye, Lillian Tukahirwa, Patricia Kabahango, Dean Kusiimakwe, Winnie Bikaako, Agnes Yawe, and Kenneth Mugabi. 2020. SheVax+: Hearing Their Voices: Action Research to Support Women’s Agency and Empowerment in Livestock Vaccine Distribution, Delivery and Use in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya – A Gender Analysis and Baseline Assessment Report for Uganda. SheVax+. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/ handle/10625/60919/IDL%20-%2060919.pdf. Mukasa, Concepta, Alice Tibazalika, Esther Mwangi, Abwoli Y. Banana, Allan Bomuhangi, and Jimmy Bushoborozi. 2016. “Strengthening Women’s Tenure Rights and Participation in Community Forestry.” CIFOR infobrief. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https:// doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006249. Mulema, Annet Abenakyo, Wole Kinati, Mamusha Lemma, Mesfin Mekonnen, Biruk G. Alemu, Belay Elias, Yifru Demeke, Hiwot Desta, and Barbara Wieland. 2020. “Clapping With Two Hands: Transforming Gender Relations and Zoonotic Disease Risks Through Community Conversations in Rural Ethiopia.” Human Ecology 48 (6): 651–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00184-y. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 39 Müller, Jocelyn G., Riyana Boubacar, and Iro Dan Guimbo. 2015. “The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of Including Gender and Age in Ethnobotanical Research and Community-Based Resource Management.” Ambio 44 (1): 67–78. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-014-0517-8. Mwambi, Mercy, Jos Bijman, and Alessandra Galiè. 2021. “The Effect of Membership in Producer Organizations on Women’s Empowerment: Evidence From Kenya.” Women’s Studies International Forum 87: 102492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102492. Mwangi, Esther, and Monica Evans. 2018. “Women Gaining Ground Through Reforestation on the Cameroonian Coast.” Brief. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https:// www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/brief/GLFNairobi-Story2.pdf. Mwangi, Esther, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Yan Sun. 2011. “Gender and Sustainable Forest Management in East Africa and Latin America.” Ecology and Society 16 (1): 17. https://www.jstor.org /stable/26268834. Nagoli, Joseph, Lucy Binauli, and Asafu Chijere. 2019. “Inclusive Ecosystems? Women’s Participation in the Aquatic Ecosystem of Lake Malawi.” Environments 6 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.3390 /environments6010003. Najjar, D., and B. Baruah. 2021. “Gender and Climate Change Adaptation in Livestock Production.” Gender, Climate Change and Livelihoods: Vulnerabilities and Adaptations 143. https://works .bepress.com/bipasha-baruah/38/. Namatovu, J., Campbell, Z., and E. Ouma. 2021. “The Role of Gender Dimensions in the Transmission and Control of Rift Valley Fever in Uganda.” ILRI Project Brief. Nairobi: ILRI. https://hdl.handle .net/10568/111784. Narváez Guerrero, Irina. 2014. “Desarrollo de una Propuesta del Bio-Protocolo de Consulta y Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado con el Pueblo Indígena Sauni Arungka, Etnia Mayangna.” Master’s thesis. Turrialba: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). http://hdl.handle.net/11554/7168. National Smallholder Poultry Development Trust. 2018. Indian Women Open Chicken Feed Factory (A Report Published by Rabobank). Utrecht: Rabobank. https://nspdt.org/2018/06/04/indian -women-open-chicken-feed-factory-a-report-published-by-rabobank/. Naughton, Colleen C., Peter N. Lovett, and James R. Mihelcic. 2015. “Land Suitability Modeling of Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) Distribution Across Sub-Saharan Africa.” Applied Geography 58: 217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.02.007. Nikolakis, William, and John L. Innes. 2020. The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi .org/10.1017/9781108684439. Njuguna-Mungai, Esther, Immaculate Omondi, Alessandra Galiè, Humphrey Jumba, Melkamu Derseh, Birthe K. Paul, Mesfin Zenebe, Alfred Juma, and Alan Duncan. 2022. “Gender Dynamics Around Introduction of Improved Forages in Kenya and Ethiopia.” Agronomy Journal 114 (1): 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20956. Njuki, Jemimah, and Pascal C. Sangina. 2013. Women, Livestock Ownership and Markets. Bridging the Gender Gap in Eastern and Southern Africa. New York: Routledge, and Ottawa: IDRC. Njuki, Jemimah, Sarah Eissler, Hazel J. Malapit, Ruth Suseela Meinzen-Dick, Elizabeth Bryan, and Agnes R. Quisumbing. 2021. “A Review of Evidence on Gender Equality, Women’s Empowerment, and Food Systems.” United Nations Food Systems Summit. https://dx.doi .org/10.48565/scfss2021-1q69. Nordhagen, Stella. 2021. “Gender Equity and Reduction of Post-Harvest Losses in Agricultural Value Chains.” Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition Working Paper #20. Geneva: GAIN. https://doi .org/10.36072/wp.20. Omondi, Immaculate, Alessandra Galiè, Nils Teufel, Agnes Loriba, Eunice Kariuki, and Isabelle Baltenweck. 2022. “Women’s Empowerment and Livestock Vaccination: Evidence from Peste des Petits Ruminants Vaccination Interventions in Northern Ghana.” Animals 12 (6): 717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060717. 40 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Patel, S. J., M. D. Patel, J. H. Patel, A. S. Patel, and R. N. Gelani. 2016. “Role of women gender in livestock sector: A review.” Journal of Livestock Science 7: 92–96. http://livestockscience.in/wp -content/uploads/gender-livestock.pdf. Pehou, Catherine, Houria Djoudi, Barbara Vinceti, and Marlène Elias. 2020. “Intersecting and Dynamic Gender Rights to Néré, a Food Tree Species in Burkina Faso.” Journal of Rural Studies 76: 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.02.011. Pham, Thuy Thu, Y. H. Mai, Moira Moeliono, and Maria Brockhaus. 2016. “Women’s Participation in REDD+ National Decision-Making in Vietnam.” International Forestry Review 18 (3): 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816819501691. Poudel, Krishna Lal, Thomas G. Johnson, and Bhawani Mishra. 2014. “Social Capital and Collective Management of Natural Resources in Nepal: A Case Study of Community Forestry.” Agrarian Frontier 2: 21–34. Prabhu, Ravi, Edmundo Barrios, Jules Bayala, Lucien Diby, Jason Donovan, Amos Gyau, Lars Graudal et al. 2015. “Agroforestry: Realizing the Promise of an Agroecological Approach.” In Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition, Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, September 18–19, 2014, Rome, Italy, 201-224. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Price, Mindy, Alessandra Galiè, Jennifer Marshall, and Ngozichukwuka Agu. 2018. “Elucidating Linkages Between Women’s Empowerment in Livestock and Nutrition: A Qualitative Study.” Development in Practice 28 (4): 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1451491. Puskur, R., Jumba, H., Reddy, B., Etale, L., Ragasa, C., Mishra, A., Mangheni, M.N., Nchanji, E., and Cole, S. 2023. Closing Gender Gaps in Productivity to Advance Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #014. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129710. Quisumbing, A., Cole, S., Elias, M., Faas, S., Galiè, A., Malapit, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Myers, E., Seymour, G., and Twyman, J. 2023. Measuring Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: Innovations and Evidence. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper #011. Nairobi, Kenya: CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129707. Quisumbing, Agnes R., and Neha Kumar. 2011. “Does Social Capital Build Women’s Assets? The Long-Term Impacts of Group-Based and Individual Dissemination of Agricultural Technology in Bangladesh.” Journal of Development Effectiveness 3 (2): 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1080 /19439342.2011.570450. Quisumbing, Agnes R., Deborah Rubin, Cristina Manfre, Elizabeth Waithanji, Mara Van den Bold, Deanna Olney, Nancy Johnson, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2015. “Gender, Assets, and Market- Oriented Agriculture: Learning From High-Value Crop and Livestock Projects in Africa and Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values 32 (4): 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015 -9587-x. Quisumbing, Agnes, Ruth Suseela Meinzen-Dick, and Jemimah Njuki. 2019. Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Gender Equality in Rural Africa: From Commitments to Outcomes. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293649. Ragasa Catherine, Eva Nimorme Torbi, Froukje Kruijssen, Seth Koranteng Agyakwah, Ruby Asmah, Emmanuel Tetteh-Doku Mensah. 2022b. “Women’s Participation and Empowerment in Aquaculture in Ghana.” Draft paper. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Ragasa, Catherine, Seth Koranteng Agyakwah, Ruby Asmah, Emmanuel Tetteh-Doku Mensah, Sena Amewu, and Mathew Oyih. 2022a. “Accelerating Pond Aquaculture Development and Resilience beyond COVID: Ensuring Food and Jobs in Ghana.” Aquaculture 547 (30): 737476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737476. Ragsdale, Kathleen, Mary Read-Wahidi, Pamela Marinda, Lauren Pincus, Elin Torell, and Robert Kolbila. 2022. “Adapting the WEAI To Explore Gender Equity Among Fishers, Processors, and Sellers at Zambia’s Lake Bangweulu.” World Development 152: 105821. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105821. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 41 Ransom, Elizabeth, Carmen Bain, Harleen Bal, and Natasha Shannon. 2017. “Cattle as Technological Interventions: The Gender Effects of Water Demand in Dairy Production in Uganda.” Facets 2 (2): 715–732. https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/full/10.1139/facets-2017-0031. Rao, Aruna, and David Kelleher. 2005. “Is There Life After Gender Mainstreaming?” Gender & Development 13 (2): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332287. Ravichandran, Thanammal, Cathy Rozel Farnworth, and Alessandra Galiè. 2021. “Empowering Women in Dairy Cooperatives in Bihar and Telangana, India: A Gender and Caste Analysis.” AgriGender Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 6 (1): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.19268/JGAFS.612021.3. RECOFTC (Center for People and Forests). 2013. Community Forestry in Asia and the Pacific: Pathway to Inclusive Development. Bangkok: Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC). Rewani, Sanjay Kumar, and Lalhumliana Tochhawng. 2016. “Social Empowerment of Women Self- Help Group Members Engaged in Livestock Rearing.” Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 14 (2): 116–119. Rosimo, Magnolia M., Julian F. Gonsalves, Johanna Gammelgaard, Rene R. Vidallo, and Emilita Monville-Oro. 2018. “Addressing Gender-Based Impacts of Climate Change: A Case Study of Guinayangan, Philippines.” CCAFS Info note. Wageningen, Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). https://hdl.handle .net/10568/98473. Rosman Hernández, Juan S. 2017. “Sistematización del Proceso de la Gobernanza de la Propiedad Comunal en los Territorios de Wangki Twi Tasba Raya y AMASAU, Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Norte, Nicaragua.” Master’s thesis. Turrialba: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). https://repositorio.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/8666. Rousseau, Karen, Denis Gautier, and D. Andrew Wardell. 2017. “Renegotiating Access to Shea Trees in Burkina Faso: Challenging Power Relationships Associated with Demographic Shifts and Globalized Trade.” Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (3): 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1111 /joac.12198. Rousseau, Karen, Denis Gautier, and D. Andrew Wardell. 2019. “Socio-Economic Differentiation and Shea Globalization in Western Burkina Faso: Integrating Gender Politics and Agrarian Change.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (4): 747–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017 .1401612. Roy, Shalini, Jinnat Ara, Narayan Das, and Agnes R. Quisumbing. 2015. “‘Flypaper effects’ in transfers targeted to women: Evidence from BRAC’s ‘Targeting the Ultra Poor’ program in Bangladesh.” Journal of Development Economics 117: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.06.004. RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2014. What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in Forest Tenure Reform Since 2002. Washington, DC: RRI. RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2017. Report: Power and Potential: A Comparative Analysis of National Laws and Regulations Concerning Women’s Rights to Community Forests. Washington, DC: RRI. RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2018. At a Crossroads: Consequential trends in recognition of community-based tenure from 2002-2017. Washington, DC: RRI. Rubin, Deborah, and Cristina Manfre. 2014. “Promoting Gender-Equitable Agricultural Value Chains: Issues, Opportunities, and Next Steps.” In Gender in Agriculture, edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman, 287–313. Dordrecht: Springer. Sari, Irna, Cynthia McDougall, Surendran Rajaratnam, and C. M. Y. Park. 2017. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture: Two Case Studies from Indonesia. Penang and Rome: FAO and WorldFish. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/271. Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., C. Hewlett, and A. M. Larson. 2019. How Does Context Affect the Outcomes of Multi-Stakeholder Forums on Land Use and/or Land-Use Change?: A Realist Synthesis Review of the Scholarly Literature. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi .org/10.17528/cifor/007284. 42 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 Serra, R., Harris-Coble, L., Dickerson, A. J., Povedano, S. A., and S. Pinzon. 2018. Gender and Livestock Value Chains Annotated Bibliography. Gainesville: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. https://livestocklab.ifas.ufl.edu/media/livestocklabifasufledu/pdf-/Gender _Annotated_Bibliography_12.14.2018.pdf. Serra, Renata, Nargiza Ludgate, Katherine Fiorillo Dowhaniuk, Sarah L. McKune, and Sandra Russo. 2022. “Beyond the Gender of the Livestock Holder: Learnings from Intersectional Analyses of PPR Vaccine Value Chains in Nepal, Senegal, and Uganda.” Animals 12 (3): 241. https://doi .org/10.3390/ani12030241. Shackleton, Sheona, Fiona Paumgarten, H. Kassa, Madeleen Husselman, and Mathurin Zida. 2011. “Opportunities for Enhancing Poor Women’s Socioeconomic Empowerment in the Value Chains of Three African Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs).” International Forestry Review 13 (2): 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811797406642. Sijapati Basnett, Bimbika. 2016. “Gender, Migration and Forest Governance: Rethinking Community Forestry Policies in Nepal.” In Gender and Forests: Climate Change, Tenure, Value Chains and Emerging Issues, edited by Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, and Marlène Elias, 283–299. New York: Routledge. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/6093/. Silong, Asenath Kotugan Fada, and Yiorgos Gadanakis. 2019. “Credit Sources, Access and Factors Influencing Credit Demand Among Rural Livestock Farmers in Nigeria.” Agricultural Finance Review 80 (1): 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-10-2018-0090. Silva, Monalisa R. O., André B. Silva, Jaciana C. Barbosa, Cássia Amaral, and Priscila F. M. Lopes. 2022. “Empowering Fisherwomen Leaders Helped Reduce the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Fishing Communities: Insights from Brazil.” Marine Policy 135: 104842. Smith, Jimmy. 2016. “Veganism Is Not the Key to Sustainable Development – Natural Resources Are Vital.” The Guardian, August 16, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/global -development/2016/aug/16/veganism-not-key-sustainable-development-natural-resources -jimmy-smith. Souto, Tamia, and Tamara Ticktin. 2012. “Understanding Interrelationships Among Predictors (Age, Gender, and Origin) of Local Ecological Knowledge.” Economic Botany 66 (2): 149–164. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12231-012-9194-3. Stein, C., and Jennie Barron. 2017. Mapping Actors Along Value Chains: Integrating Visual Network Research and Participatory Statistics into Value Chain Analysis. Vol. 5. Colombo: International Water Management Institute and CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems. Stiem, Larissa, and Torsten Krause. 2016. “Exploring the Impact of Social Norms and Perceptions on Women’s Participation in Customary Forest and Land Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo—Implications for REDD+.” International Forestry Review 18 (1): 110–122. https://doi .org/10.1505/146554816818206113. Stloukal, Libor, C. Holding, S. Kaaria, F. Guarascio, and N. Gunewardena. 2013. “Forests, Food Security and Gender.” Unasylva 241 (64): 37–45. Stoian, Dietmar, Jason Donovan, Marlène Elias, and Trent Blare. 2018. “Fit for Purpose? A Review of Guides for Gender-Equitable Value Chain Development.” Development in Practice 28 (4): 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1447550. Subasinghe, R. P., S. N. Siriwardena, K. A. Byrd, C. Chan, K. Dizyee, K. M. Shikuku, N. Tran et al. 2021. “Nigeria Fish Futures. Aquaculture in Nigeria: Increasing Income, Diversifying Diets and Empowering Women. Report of the Scoping Study.” Program Report: 2021-16. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/4951. Sunderland, Terry, Ramadhani Achdiawan, Arild Angelsen, Ronnie Babigumira, Amy Ickowitz, Fiona Paumgarten, Victoria Reyes-García, and Gerald Shively. 2014. “Challenging Perceptions About Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study.” World Development 64: S56–S66. Sunderlin, William D., Claudio de Sassi, Erin O. Sills, Amy E. Duchelle, Anne M. Larson, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Abdon Awono, Demetrius Leo Kweka, and Thu Ba Huynh. 2018. “Creating an Appropriate Tenure Foundation for REDD+: The Record to Date and Prospects for the Future.” World Development 106: 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.010. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 43 Takeshima, Hiroyuki, Futoshi Yamauchi, Dauda Bawa, Salaudeen O. Kamaldeen, Hyacinth O. Edeh, and Manuel A. Hernández. 2021. “Solar-Powered Cold-Storages and Sustainable Food System Transformation: Evidence from Horticulture Markets Interventions in Northeast Nigeria.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 2047. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134668. Tavenner, Katie, and Todd A. Crane. 2018. “Gender Power in Kenyan Dairy: Cows, Commodities, and Commercialization.” Agriculture and Human Values 35 (3): 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10460-018-9867-3. Tavenner, Katie, and Todd A. Crane. 2019. “Beyond ‘Women and Youth’: Applying Intersectionality in Agricultural Research for Development.” Outlook on Agriculture 48 (4): 316–325. https://doi .org/10.1177/0030727019884334. Tavenner, Katie, Mark Van Wijk, Simon Fraval, James Hammond, Isabelle Baltenweck, Nils Teufel, Esther Kihoro et al. 2019. “Intensifying Inequality? Gendered Trends in Commercializing and Diversifying Smallholder Farming Systems in East Africa.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00010. Tavenner, Katie, Simon Fraval, Immaculate Omondi, and Todd A. Crane. 2018. “Gendered Reporting of Household Dynamics in the Kenyan Dairy Sector: Trends and Implications for Low Emissions Dairy Development.” Gender, Technology and Development 22 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org /10.1080/09718524.2018.1449488. Tavenner, Katie, Todd A. Crane, and Tarangini Saxena. 2021. “‘Breaking Even’ under Intensification? Gendered Trade-Offs for Women Milk Marketers in Kenya.” Rural Sociology 86 (1): 110–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12345. TCI (Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition). 2019. Tata-Cornell Institute Annual Report. Ithaca: Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition (TCI). Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education). 2018. Customary Tenure Systems and REDD+: Ensuring Benefits for Indigenous Peoples. The Philippines: Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba). Tesfay, Solomon, and Mekonen Teferi. 2017. “Assessment of Fish Post-Harvest Losses in Tekeze Dam and Lake Hashenge Fishery Associations: Northern Ethiopia.” Agriculture & Food Security 6 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0081-5. The United Republic of Tanzania. 2015. The United Republic of Tanzania National Fisheries Policy. Tanzania: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development. Thilsted, Shakuntala Haraksingh, Andrew Thorne-Lyman, Patrick Webb, Jessica Rose Bogard, Rohana Subasinghe, Michael John Phillips, and Edward Hugh Allison. 2016. “Sustaining Healthy Diets: The Role of Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture for Improving Nutrition in the Post-2015 Era.” Food Policy 61: 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.005. Torres-Avilez, Wendy, Patrícia Muniz de Medeiros, and Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque. 2016. “Effect of Gender on the Knowledge of Medicinal Plants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2016: 1–13. https://doi .org/10.1155/2016/6592363. Tseng, Tzu-Wei Joy, Brian E. Robinson, Marc F. Bellemare, Ariel BenYishay, Allen Blackman, Timothy Boucher, Malcolm Childress et al. 2021. “Influence of Land Tenure Interventions on Human Well-Being and Environmental Outcomes.” Nature Sustainability 4 (3): 242–251. Tsikata, Dzodzi, and Akosua K. Darkwah. 2014. “Researching Empowerment: On Methodological Innovations, Pitfalls and Challenges.” Women’s Studies International Forum 45: 81–89. UN Women. 2018. Turning Promises into Actions: Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN Women. UN Women. 2020. Women’s Economic Empowerment in Fisheries in the Blue Economy of the Indian Ocean Rim: A Baseline Report. New York: UN Women. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2017. Population Division World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. ESA/P/WP/248. New York: UNDESA. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf. 44 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 UN-REDD. 2021. “Costa Rica Puts Gender First for Inclusive Climate Action.” UN-REDD, November 4, 2021. https://www.un-redd.org/news/costa-rica-puts-gender-first-inclusive-climate-action. Vinceti, Barbara, Amy Ickowitz, Bronwen Powell, Katja Kehlenbeck, Céline Termote, Bruce Cogill, and Danny Hunter. 2013. “The Contributions of Forest Foods to Sustainable Diets.” Unasylva 64 (241): 54–64. Weeratunge-Starkloff, Nireka, and Jharendu Pant. 2011. “Gender and Aquaculture: Sharing the Benefits Equitably.” Issues Brief 2011-32. Penang: The WorldFish Center. Wilber, Ken. 1999. The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Volume 4. Boston: Shambhala Press. Williams, M. J., Nikita Gopal, N. Veena, Kyoko Kusakabe, Cherdsak Virapat, Salin Krishna, and Danika Kleiber. 2019. Expanding the Horizons: The 7th Global Conference on Gender in Aquaculture & Fisheries (GAF7) Showcases Progress Towards and Challenges to Gender Equality. Serdang: Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section. World Bank. 2012. Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11873. World Bank. 2019. How To Prepare a Gender Action Plan for a REDD+ Strategy: Lessons Learned and Recommendations From the Process in Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021a. Opportunities for Climate Finance in the Livestock Sector: Removing Obstacles and Realizing Potential. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/35495. World Bank. 2021b. Harnessing Forests as Pathways to Prosperity in Liberia: Policy Note. Washington, DC: World Bank. Zomer, Robert J., Antonio Trabucco, Richard Coe, Frank Place, Meine Van Noordwijk, and J. C. Xu. 2014. “Trees on Farms: An Update and Reanalysis of Agroforestry’s Global Extent and Socio- Ecological Characteristics.” Working Paper 179. Bogor: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program. https://doi.org/10.5716/ WP14064.PDF. Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 45 ANNEX AND GLOSSARY Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129708. 46 CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform · Working Paper #012 GENDER Impact Platform Generating Evidence and New Directions for Equitable Results (GENDER) is CGIAR’s impact platform designed to put equality and inclusion at the forefront of global agricultural research for development. The Platform is transforming the way gender research is done, both within and beyond CGIAR, to kick-start a process of genuine change toward greater gender equality and better lives for smallholder farmers everywhere. gender.cgiar.org CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future dedicated to reducing poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources. cgiar.org Beyond Crops: Toward Gender Equality in Forestry, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Livestock Development 47