Notes

Chapitre 1

1. FAO. 2011. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2010-11. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i2050f/i2050f.pdf

2. FAO, Fonds international de développement agricole (FIDA), Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS), Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM) et Fonds des Nations Unies pour l’enfance (UNICEF). 2022. L’État de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le monde 2022. Réorienter les politiques alimentaires et agricoles pour rendre l’alimentation saine plus abordable. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639fr.

3. Davis et al. 2003.

4. FAO. 2017. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2017. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I7658f/I7658f.pdf.

5. Ambikapathi, R., Schneider, K.R., Davis, B., Herrero, M., Winters, P. et Fanzo, J.C. 2022. Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity. Nature Food, 3(9): 764–779.

6. Njuki, J., Eissler, S., Malapit, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Bryan, E. et Quisumbing, A. 2022. A review of evidence on gender equality, women’s empowerment, and food systems. Global Food Security, 33: 100622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100622

7. Lecoutere, E., Katrina Kosec, Quisumbing, A., Elias, M., Bryan, E. et Puskur, R. 2022. Equality and empowerment by gender and intersecting social differentiation in agri-food systems: Setting the stage. Background paper for The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023. Plateforme GENDER du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/129704

8. Pyburn, R. et van Eerdewijk, A. 2021. Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future. Institut international de recherche sur les politiques alimentaires (IFPRI), Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293915

9. Hillenbrand, E., Karim, N., Mohanraj, P. et Wu, D. 2015. Measuring gender-transformative change: A review of literature and promising practices. CARE USA. Working Paper.

10. Cole, S.M., Kantor, P., Sarapura, S. et Rajaratnam, S. 2014. Gender-transformative approaches to address inequalities in food, nutrition and economic outcomes in aquatic agricultural systems. Programme de recherche du CGIAR sur les systèmes agricoles aquatiques, Penang (Malaisie).

11. Quisumbing, A.R., Meinzen-Dick, R.S. et Malapit, H.J. 2019. Gender equality: Women’s empowerment for rural revitalization. In 2019 Global Food Policy Report. Chapitre 5, Pp. 44-51. Chapitre 5, p. 44 à 51. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293502_05

12. Johnson, N., Balagamwala, M., Pinkstaff, C., Theis, S., Meinzen-Dick, R. et Quisumbing, A. 2018. How do agricultural development projects empower women? Linking strategies with expected outcomes. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 3(2):1-19.

13. Kabeer, N. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3): 435–464.

Chapitre 2

1. Kosec, K., Hidrobo, M., Gartaula, H., Van Campenhout, B., et Carrillo, L. 2023. Making complementary agricultural resources, technologies, and services more gender-responsive. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya). https://gender.cgiar.org/SWAFS-2023.

2. Doss, C., et Mika, H. 2021. This land is her land: A comparative analysis of gender, institutions, and landownership. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2089. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134943.

3. UNICEF. 2023. Girls’ education: Gender equality in education benefits every child. In UNICEF. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.unicef.org/education/girls-education (consulté le 1er février 2023).

4. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO). 2020. Rapport mondial de suivi sur l’éducation 2020 – Rapport sur l’égalité des genres: Une nouvelle génération: 25 ans d’efforts pour atteindre l’égalité des genres dans l’éducation. Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375469.

5. UNESCO (2020), figure 5.

6. FAO. 2012. Directives volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux forêts dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire nationale. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i2801f/i2801f.pdf.

7. La présente section s’appuie principalement sur les informations communiquées par les pays au sujet des indicateurs 5.a.1 et 5.a.2 des ODD, dont la FAO est l’organisme garant.

8. Les renseignements fournis dans la présente section s’appuient sur les données communiquées par les pays au sujet de l’indicateur 5.a.2 des ODD. Dans la mesure où les déclarations des pays ne fournissent qu’un seul point de référence dans le temps, d’autres sources en accès libre sur les lois et les réformes juridiques antérieures à 2010 et postérieures aux déclarations des pays ont été consultées pour recenser les modifications qui ont été apportées aux textes de loi depuis l’édition 2010-2011 du rapport sur La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture.

9. Les différents régimes de répartition des biens entre époux peuvent être classés comme suit: i) séparation de biens: tous les types de biens acquis avant ou pendant le mariage restent des biens propres à chacun des conjoints; ii) communauté partielle de biens: les biens acquis pendant le mariage deviennent des biens communs, mais ceux qui ont été acquis avant le mariage et reçus par héritage restent propres à chacun des conjoints; iii) communauté universelle de biens: tous les biens acquis avant ou pendant le mariage deviennent des biens communs; et iv) communauté de biens différée totale ou partielle: les biens acquis par le mari ou la femme avant et pendant le mariage restent, en tout ou partie, la propriété de la personne qui les avait acquis, mais en cas de dissolution du mariage, les biens sont partagés (Almodóvar-Reteguis, N., Kushnir, K., et Meilland, T. 2011. Mapping the legal gender gap in using property and building credit. Women, Business and the Law Topic Note. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://tinyurl.com/48s6w3e8.). D’après les données communiquées sur l’indicateur 5.a.2, la plupart des pays disposent d’un régime matrimonial principal, tandis que d’autres pays permettent de choisir entre différents régimes ou ne réglementent pas les effets du mariage. Souvent, le régime par défaut qui encadre la répartition des biens entre époux empiète sur d’autres régimes ayant trait à l’acquisition de terres ou de biens, comme le droit coutumier ou religieux.

10. Il existe certaines exceptions, par exemple: Kenya. Matrimonial Property Act, 2013; Kenya. Marriage Act, 2014; et Gabon. Loi N° 004/2021 du 15/09/2021 portant modification de certaines dispositions de la loi portant Code Civil, 2021.

11. Parmi les exemples intéressants, on peut citer le Mali et le Sénégal, où l’égalité des droits de succession entre les femmes et les hommes est la règle, tant que la personne ne choisit pas explicitement le régime musulman (ou coutumier) qui ne reconnaît pas cette égalité (Mali. Loi N°2011 – 087 portant Code des personnes et de la famille, 2011; Sénégal. Loi N° 72–61 portant Code de la famille, 1972).

12. Kenya. Land registration Act, Cap. 300, 2012.

13. Bolivie (État plurinational de). Ley Nº 3545 – Modifica la Ley Nº 1715, Servicio Nacional de Reforma Agraria, 2006.

14. République dominicaine. Ley Nº 55 – Modifica la Ley Nº 5.879 de 1962 sobre Reforma Agraria, 1997.

15. Népal. Financial Bills 2020, pour les provinces suivantes: 1, 2, Bagmati, Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali et Sudur Paschim.

16. Thaïlande. Regulations of the Department of Lands Regarding the registration of spouse’s signature and dividing property between spouses in land and other immovable properties, B.E. 2553, 2010.

17. Le dernier exemple en date est la Sierra Leone, où d’importantes réformes ont été mises en place en 2022 (Sierra Leone. The Customary Land Rights Act, 2022; Sierra Leone. The National Land Commission Act, 2022; Sierra Leone. The Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Act, 2022). Ces réformes ne sont pas encore prises en compte dans les résultats figurant dans la présente publication.

18. La recommandation générale no 25 concernant le premier paragraphe de l’article 4 de la Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes porte sur l’utilisation de mesures temporaires spéciales pour lutter contre les disparités de genre et accélérer la concrétisation d’une égalité de fait entre les femmes et les hommes. Les mesures temporaires spéciales, aussi appelées «mesures d’action affirmative» ou «mesures de discrimination positive», comprennent des instruments législatifs, exécutifs, administratifs et réglementaires, ainsi que l’affectation ou la redistribution de ressources, le traitement préférentiel et les contingentements (paragraphe 22). Comité pour l’élimination de la discrimination à l’égard des femmes, Recommandation générale No 25 concernant le premier paragraphe de l’article 4 de la Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes, portant sur les mesures temporaires spéciales, 2004. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/General%20recommendation%2025%20(French).pdf.

19. Bayisenge, J., Höjer, S., et Espling, M. 2015. Women’s land rights in the context of the land tenure reform in Rwanda – the experiences of policy implementers. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 9(1): 74-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2014.985496.

20. Deininger, K., Goyal, A., et Nagarajan, H. 2013. Women’s inheritance rights and intergenerational transmission of resources in India. Journal of Human Resources, 48(1): 114-141.

21. Gaddis, I., Lahoti, R., et Swaminathan, H. 2022. Women’s legal rights and gender gaps in property ownership in developing countries. Population and Development Review, 48(2): 331-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12493.

22. Cette conclusion s’appuie sur l’analyse d’un échantillon de 28 pays pour lesquels on dispose d’informations sur le nombre de protections juridiques des droits fonciers des femmes (d’après l’indicateur 5.a.2) et d’estimations de l’écart femmes-hommes en matière d’accès à la propriété foncière au sein des populations agricoles (exprimé en pourcentage par rapport au taux de propriété foncière chez les hommes).

23. Prindex. 2020. Women’s perceptions of tenure security: Evidence from 140 countries. Londres. https://prindex.net/reports/womens-perceptions-tenure-security-evidence-140-countries/. Dans le cadre des enquêtes Prindex, effectuées dans 140 pays du monde, il a été demandé à des femmes et à des hommes d’évaluer quelle était la probabilité qu’ils perdent leur droit de propriété sur la totalité ou une partie de leurs biens contre leur gré dans les cinq prochaines années. On a également demandé à des femmes et à des hommes mariés s’ils s’inquiétaient de perdre des biens fonciers en cas de divorce ou de décès de leur époux ou de leur épouse. Dans tous les pays, ces questions ont été posées au sujet de la propriété principale, c’est-à-dire la maison, et d’une autre propriété. L’analyse développée dans le présent document porte principalement sur un sous-échantillon de 70 pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire et sur les réponses intéressant l’agriculture.

24. Un grand nombre de questions, concernant les inquiétudes relatives à l’accès à l’eau et la disponibilité de l’eau pour des tâches ménagères précises, sont posées aux personnes interrogées. On ne leur demande rien au sujet de l’accès à l’eau à des fins productives, et on ne cherche pas à savoir quel membre du ménage prend en charge les tâches ménagères ou les activités de collecte de l’eau (Northwestern University. n.d. The HWISE scale. Evanston (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://doi.org/10.21985/n2-1g6s-6a43).

25. Young, S. L., Bethancourt, H. J., Ritter, Z. R., et Frongillo, E. A. 2022. Estimating national, demographic, and socioeconomic disparities in water insecurity experiences in low-income and middle-income countries in 2020–21: A cross-sectional, observational study using nationally representative survey data. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(11): e880-e891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00241-8.

26. Wutich, A. 2009. Intrahousehold disparities in women and men’s experiences of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban Bolivia. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 23(4): 436-454.

27. Pearson, A. L., Mack, E. A., Ross, A., Marcantonio, R., Zimmer, A., Bunting, E. L., Smith, A. C. et al. 2021. Interpersonal conflict over water is associated with household demographics, domains of water insecurity, and regional conflict: Evidence from nine sites across eight sub-Saharan African countries. Water, 13(9): 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091150.

28. Clement, F., et Nicol, A. 2019. Gender, poverty and politics along the real-virtual water spectrum. In T. Allan, B. Bromwich, M. Keulertz et A. Colman (sous la direction de). The Oxford handbook of food, water and society, p. 250-267. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190669799.013.63.

29. Joshi, D., Monterroso, I., Gallant, B., Perera, K., et Peveri, V. 2021. A gender–natural resources tango: Water, land, and forest research. In R. Pyburn et A. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 221-258. IFPRI, Washington.

30. Nauges, C., et Strand, J. 2013. Water hauling and girls’ school attendance. Some new evidence from Ghana. Policy Research Working Paper 6443. Banque Mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6443.

31. Van Houweling, E., Hall, R. P., Diop, A. S., Davis, J., et Seiss, M. 2012. The role of productive water use in women’s livelihoods: Evidence from rural Senegal. Water Alternatives, 5(3): 658-677.

32. Caruso, B. A., Conrad, A., Patrick, M., Owens, A., Kviten, K., Zarella, O., Rogers, H., et Sinharoy, S. S. 2022. Water, sanitation, and women’s empowerment: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis. PLOS Water, 1(6): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000026.

33. Mekonnen, D. K., Choufani, J., Bryan, E., Haile, B., et Ringler, C. 2022. Irrigation improves weight-for-height z-scores of children under five, and women’s and household dietary diversity scores in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 18(4): e13395. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13395.

34. Mitra, A., et Rao, N. 2019. Gender, water, and nutrition in India: An intersectional perspective. Water Alternatives, 12(1): 169-191.

35. Doss, C., et Meinzen-Dick, R. 2020. Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy, 99: 105080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105080.

36. Meinzen-Dick, R., et Zwarteveen, M. 1998. Gendered participation in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users’ associations in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(4): 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007533018254.

37. Theis, S., Bryan, E., et Ringler, C. 2019. Addressing gender and social dynamics to strengthen resilience for all. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick et J. Njuki (sous la direction de). 2019 Annual trends and outlook report: Gender equality in rural Africa: From commitments to outcomes, p. 126-139. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293649_09.

38. Van Koppen, B. 1998. Water rights, gender, and poverty alleviation. Inclusion and exclusion of women and men smallholders in public irrigation infrastructure development. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(4): 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007537119163.

39. ONU-Femmes et DESA. 2021. Progrès vers la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable – Gros plan sur l’égalité des sexes 2021. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

40. Anríquez, G., Quiñonez, F., et Foster, W. (à paraître). Levelling the farm fields, A cross-country study of the determinants of gender-based yield gaps. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023.

41. Les limites de l’approche consistant à s’intéresser essentiellement au chef de famille sont abordées en profondeur dans la littérature (voir également l’encadré 2.10 du chapitre 2). Dans le présent chapitre, nous nous appuyons sur toutes les sources d’information, tant au niveau des individus qu’au niveau des ménages, pour trouver des signes indiquant une évolution dans le temps de l’accès aux ressources pour tous les groupes de femmes au sein des systèmes agroalimentaires.

42. Njuki, J., Waithanji, E., Sakwa, B., Kariuki, J., Mukewa, E., et Ngige, J. 2014. A qualitative assessment of gender and irrigation technology in Kenya and Tanzania. Gender, Technology and Development, 18(3): 303-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852414544010.

43. Kulkarni, S. 2012. Redefining irrigation as if gender mattered. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Highlight, 14. Institut international de gestion des ressources en eau, Colombo (Sri Lanka).

44. Dickin, S., Segnestam, L., et Sou Dakouré, M. 2021. Women’s vulnerability to climate-related risks to household water security in Centre-East, Burkina Faso. Climate and Development, 13(5): 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1790335.

45. Horbulyk, T., et Balasubramanya, S. 2018. Impact of water users associations on water and land productivity, equity and food security in Tajikistan. Rapport final, volume 1. Institut international de gestion des ressources en eau, Colombo (Sri Lanka).

46. Sugden, F., Maskey, N., Clement, F., Ramesh, V., Philip, A., et Rai, A. 2014. Agrarian stress and climate change in the Eastern Gangetic Plains: Gendered vulnerability in a stratified social formation. Global Environmental Change, 29: 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.008.

47. Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D., et MacMillan, S. 2014. Livestock and women’s livelihoods. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman et A. Peterman (sous la direction de). Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap, p. 209-233. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (Pays-Bas). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_9.

48. Acosta, A., Nicolli, F., et Karfakis, P. 2021. Coping with climate shocks: The complex role of livestock portfolios. World Development, 146: 105546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105546.

49. McKune, S. L., Borresen, E. C., Young, A. G., Auria Ryley, T. D., Russo, S. L., Diao Camara, A., Coleman, M., et Ryan, E. P. 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.

50. Bain, C., Ransom, E., et Halimatusa’diyah, I. 2020. Dairy livestock interventions for food security in Uganda: What are the implications for women’s empowerment? Rural Sociology, 85(4): 991-1020.

51. Galiè, A., Teufel, N., Girard, A. W., Baltenweck, I., Dominguez-Salas, P., Price, M. J., Jones, R. et al. 2019. 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.

52. Gitungwa, H., Gustafson, C. R., Jimenez, E. Y., Peterson, E. W., Mwanzalila, M., Makweta, A., Komba, E., Kazwala, R. R., Mazet, J. A. K., et VanWormer, E. 2021. Female and male-controlled livestock holdings impact pastoralist food security and women’s dietary diversity. One Health Outlook, 3(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-020-00032-5.

53. Les unités de bétail tropical servent d’unité de mesure commune pour différentes espèces de bétail auxquelles sont attribuées un coefficient de conversion type (voir le tableau 6 dans Ahmed, M. H., et Mesfin, H. M. 2017. The impact of agricultural cooperatives membership on the wellbeing of smallholder farmers: empirical evidence from eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 5: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-017-0075-z.

54. Il est difficile d’effectuer une comparaison avec les résultats observés au niveau des ménages en raison du manque de données disponibles.

55. Banque mondiale. 2023. Generating relevant data for policy makers and the research community. In Banque mondiale. Washington (États-Unis). https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/collections/lsms (consulté le 4 février 2023).

56. Cette conclusion confirme qu’il est important de commencer à privilégier autant que possible les données au niveau individuel plutôt que la collecte de données ventilées selon le sexe du chef de famille. Dans ce dernier cas, les données recueillies reflètent souvent la situation de ménages dirigés par des femmes qui sont plus défavorisés (par exemple, des ménages dont le chef de famille est une femme veuve).

57. Elias, M., Zaremba, H., Tavenner, K., Ragasa, C., Paez Valencia, A. M., Choudhury, A., et de Haan, N. 2023. Beyond crops: Towards gender equality in forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock development. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya). https://gender.cgiar.org/SWAFS-2023.

58. Dumas, S. E., Maranga, A., Mbullo, P., Collins, S., Wekesa, P., Onono, M., et Young, S. L. 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.

59. Njuki, J., et Sangina, P. C. (sous la direction de). 2013. Women, livestock ownership and markets: Bridging the gender gap in eastern and southern Africa. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni). https://tinyurl.com/27k3qqqa.

60. Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2012. Invisible guardians: Women manage livestock diversity. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No.174. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3018e.pdf.

61. Baltenweck, I., Achandi, E., Bullock, R., Campbell, Z., Crane, T., Eldermire, E., Gichuki, L. et al. 2021. What can we learn from the literature about livestock interventions and women’s empowerment? ILRI Research Brief 105. ILRI, Nairobi. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/117227.

62. Chanamuto, N. J. C., et Hall, S. J. G. 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.

63. Tavenner, K., van Wijk, M., Fraval, S., Hammond, J., Baltenweck, I., Teufel, N., Kihoro, E., et al. 2019. Intensifying inequality? Gendered trends in commercializing and diversifying smallholder farming systems in East Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00010.

64. Serra, R., Harris-Coble, L., Dickerson, A. J., Povedano, S. A., et Pinzon, S. 2018. Gender and livestock value chains annotated bibliography. Laboratoire d’innovation Feed the Future pour les systèmes d’élevage, Gainesville (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://tinyurl.com/2n6gfapn.

65. Flintan, F. 2021. Pastoral women, tenure, and governance. PIM Flagship Brief December 2021. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134947.

66. ILRI. 2021. Losing livestock, losing land, losing face: Pastoralist women and change in Gujarat, India. Nairobi. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117283.

67. Njuguna-Mungai, E., Omondi, I., Galiè, A., Jumba, H., Derseh, M., Paul, B. K., Zenebe, M., Juma, A., et Duncan, A. 2022. Gender dynamics around introduction of improved forages in Kenya and Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal, 114(1): 277-295.

68. Ransom, E., Bain, C., Bal, H., et Shannon, N. 2017. Cattle as technological interventions: The gender effects of water demand in dairy production in Uganda. FACETS, 2: 715-732. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0031.

69. Silong, A. K. F., et Gadanakis, Y. 2020. Credit sources, access and factors influencing credit demand among rural livestock farmers in Nigeria. Agricultural Finance Review, 80(1): 68-90.

70. Acosta, D., Ludgate, N., McKune, S. L., et Russo, S. 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.

71. McKune, S., Serra, R., et Touré, A. 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.

72. Quisumbing, A. R., et Doss, C. R. 2021. Chapter 82—Gender in agriculture and food systems. In C. B. Barrett et D. R. Just (sous la direction de). Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 5: 4481-4549. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesagr.2021.10.009.

73. Anderson, C. L., Reynolds, T. W., Biscaye, P., Patwardhan, V., et Schmidt, C. 2021. Economic benefits of empowering women in agriculture: Assumptions and evidence. The Journal of Development Studies, 57(2): 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1769071.

74. Kaminski, A. M., Cole, S. M., Al Haddad, R. E., Kefi, A. S., Chilala, A. D., Chisule, G., Mukuka, K. N., Longley, C., Teoh, S. J., et Ward, A. R. 2020. Fish losses for whom? A gendered assessment of post-harvest losses in the Barotse Floodplain Fishery, Zambia. Sustainability, 12(23): 10091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310091.

75. Fischer, G., Wittich, S., Malima, G., Sikumba, G., Lukuyu, B., Ngunga, D., et Rugalabam, J. 2018. Gender and mechanization: Exploring the sustainability of mechanized forage chopping in Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 64: 112-122.

76. Houmy, K., Clarke, L. J., Ashburner, J. E., et Kienzle, J. 2013. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: Guidelines for preparing a strategy. Integrated Crop Management, 22. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i3349e/i3349e.pdf.

77. FAO. 2022. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2022. L’automatisation de l’agriculture au service de la transformation des systèmes agroalimentaires. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9479fr.

78. Vemireddy, V., et Choudhary, A. 2021. A systematic review of labor-saving technologies: Implications for women in agriculture. Global Food Security, 29: 100541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100541.

79. Caunedo, J., et Kala, N. 2021. Mechanizing agriculture. NBER Working Paper Series No. 29061. Bureau national de recherche économique, Cambridge (États-Unis d’Amérique).

80. Christiaensen, L., Rutledge, Z., et Taylor, J. E. 2021. Viewpoint: The future of work in agri-food. Food Policy, 99: 101963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101963.

81. Farnworth, C. R., Bharati, P., Krishna, V. V., Roeven, L., et Badstue, L. 2022. Caste-gender intersectionalities in wheat-growing communities in Madhya Pradesh, India. Gender, Technology and Development, 26(1): 28-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2034096.

82. Afridi, F., Bishnu, M., et Mahajan, K. 2023. Gender and mechanization: Evidence from Indian agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 105(1): 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12315.

83. Farnworth, C. R., San, A. M., Kundu, N. D., Islam, M. M., Jahan, R., Depenbusch, L., Nair, R. M., Myint, T., et Schreinemachers, P. 2020. How will mechanizing mung bean harvesting affect women hired laborers in Myanmar and Bangladesh? Sustainability, 12(19): 7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197870.

84. Paris, T. R., et Chi, T. T. N. 2005. The impact of row seeder technology on women labor: A case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Gender, Technology and Development, 9(2): 157-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240500900201.

85. Daum, T., Adegbola, Y. P., Kamau, G., Kergna, A. O., Daudu, C., Zossou, R. C., Crinot, G. F. et al. 2020. Perceived effects of farm tractors in four African countries, highlighted by participatory impact diagrams. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(6): 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00651-2.

86. Baudron, F., Misiko, M., Getnet, B., Nazare, R., Sariah, J., et Kaumbutho, P. 2019. A farm-level assessment of labor and mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39: 1-13.

87. Achandi, E. L., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A. R., Gebremariam, S., Rahalivavololona, N., et Rodenburg, J. 2018. Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 60: 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.011.

88. Croppenstedt, A., Goldstein, M., et Rosas, N. 2013. Gender and agriculture: Inefficiencies, segregation, and low productivity traps. The World Bank Research Observer, 28: 79-109.

89. Huyer, S. 2016. Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(2): 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852416643872.

90. Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal, P. et al. 2016. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development, 8(2): 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978.

91. Theis, S., Lefore, N., Meinzen-Dick, R., et Bryan, E. 2018. What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(3): 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9862-8.

92. Kawarazuka, N. 2018. Agricultural mechanization: How far do women farmers benefit? In CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas. https://www.rtb.cgiar.org/news/agricultural-mechanization-far-women-farmers-benefit/ (consulté le 31 janvier 2023).

93. Paris, T., Diaz, C., et Hossain, I. 2011. Participatory evaluation of a rice flour mill by poor rural women. Gender, Technology and Development, 15(2): 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185241101500205.

94. Gebre, G. G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D. B., Amekawa, Y., et Nomura, H. 2021. Gender gaps in market participation among individual and joint decision-making farm households: Evidence from southern Ethiopia. European Journal of Development Research, 33: 649-683. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00289-6.

95. Coulter, J. E., Witinok-Huber, R. A., Bruyere, B. L., et Dorothy Nyingi, W. 2019. Giving women a voice on decision-making about water: Barriers and opportunities in Laikipia, Kenya. Gender, Place & Culture, 26(4): 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1502163.

96. Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Huyer, S., et van Huysen, T. 2020. Gender-responsive rural climate services: A review of the literature. Climate and Development, 12(3): 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1613216.

97. Manfre, C., Rubin, D., Allen, A., Summerfield, G., Colverson, K., et Akeredolu, M. 2013. Reducing the gender gap in agricultural extension and advisory services: How to find the best fit for men and women farmers. MEAS Brief #2. Discussion Paper. Projet «Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services», Urbana, (États-Unis d’Amérique).

98. Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., et Taffesse, A. S. 2013. Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(5): 437-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.817343.

99. Galiè, A. 2013. Empowering women farmers: The case of participatory plant breeding in ten Syrian households. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 34(1): 58-92.

100. Memon, Q. U. A., Wagan, S. A., Chunyu, D., Shuangxi, X., Jingdong, L., et Damalas, C. A. 2019. Health problems from pesticide exposure and personal protective measures among women cotton workers in southern Pakistan. Science of The Total Environment, 685: 659-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.173.

101. Mrema, E. J., Ngowi, A. V., Kishinhi, S. S., et Mamuya, S. H. 2017. Pesticide exposure and health problems among female horticulture workers in Tanzania. Environmental Health Insights, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630217715237.

102. Mudege, N. N., Mdege, N., Abidin, P. E., et Bhatasara, S. 2017. The role of gender norms in access to agricultural training in Chikwawa and Phalombe, Malawi. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(12): 1689-1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1383363.

103. Huyer, S., Gumucio, T., Tavenner, K., Acosta, M., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Mungai, C. et al. 2021. From vulnerability to agency in climate adaptation and mitigation. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 261-294. IFPRI, Washington.

104. Lamontagne-Godwin, J., Williams, F. E., Aslam, N., Cardey, S., Dorward, P., et Almas, M. 2018. Gender differences in use and preferences of agricultural information sources in Pakistan. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(5): 419-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1491870.

105. Kosec, K., et Wantchekon, L. 2020. Can information improve rural governance and service delivery? World Development, 125: 104376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.017.

106. Malapit, H., Heckert, J., Scott, J., Padmaja, R., et Quisumbing, A. 2021. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture for gender equality. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 189-218. IFPRI, Washington.

107. Ingutia, R., et Sumelius, J. 2022. Determinants of food security status with reference to women farmers in rural Kenya. Scientific African, 15: e01114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01114.

108. Magnan, N., Spielman, D. J., Lybbert, T. J., et Gulati, K. 2015. Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers’ demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits. Journal of Development Economics, 116: 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.05.003.

109. Po, J. Y. T., et Hickey, G. M. 2020. Cross-scale relationships between social capital and women’s participation in decision-making on the farm: A multilevel study in semi-arid Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies, 78: 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.024.

110. Raghunathan, K., Kannan, S., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2019. Can women’s self-help groups improve access to information, decision-making, and agricultural practices? The Indian case. Agricultural Economics, 50(5): 567-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12510.

111. Coleman, E. A., et Mwangi. E. 2013. Women’s participation in forest management: A cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23: 193-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.005.

112. Beaman, L., et Dillon, A. 2018. Diffusion of agricultural information within social networks: Evidence on gender inequalities from Mali. Journal of Development Economics, 133: 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.01.009.

113. Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J. A., Pandolfelli, L., Peterman, A., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2014. Gender and social capital for agricultural development. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman et A. Peterman (sous la direction de). Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap, p. 235-266. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (Pays-Bas). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_10.

114. Brulé, R., et Gaikwad, N. 2021. Culture, capital, and the political economy gender gap: Evidence from Meghalaya’s matrilineal tribes. The Journal of Politics, 83(3): 834-850. https://doi.org/10.1086/711176.

115. Cheema, A., Khan, S., Liaqat, A., et Mohmand, S. K. 2022. Canvassing the gatekeepers: A field experiment to increase women voters’ turnout in Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000375.

116. Robinson, A. L., et Gottlieb, J. 2021. How to close the gender gap in political participation: Lessons from matrilineal societies in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 68-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000650.

117. Preece, J. R. 2016. Mind the gender gap: An experiment on the influence of self-efficacy on political interest. Politics & Gender, 12(1): 198-217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X15000628.

118. Kaaria, S., Osorio, M., Wagner, S., Gallina, A., Kaaria, S., Osorio, M., Wagner, S., et Gallina, A. 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.

119. Kosec, K., Bleck, J., et Gottlieb, J. 2022. FR2.3: Women’s voices in civil society organizations: Evidence from a civil society mapping project in Mali. Presented at the CGIAR GENDER Science Exchange, Nairobi, 12–14 October 2022. IFPRI, Washington. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/125611.

120. OCDE. 2014. Science, technologie et industrie: Perspectives de l’OCDE. Éditions OCDE, Paris. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/science-and-technology/science-technologie-et-industrie-perspectives-de-l-ocde_20747152.

121. Winther, T., Matinga, M. N, Ulsrud, K., et Standal, K. 2017. Women’s empowerment through electricity access: scoping study and proposal for a framework of analysis. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(3): 389-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1343368.

122. Pueyo, A., et Maestre, M. 2019. Linking energy access, gender and poverty: A review of the literature on productive uses of energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 53: 170-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.019.

123. Union internationale des télécommunications (UIT). 2022. Measuring Digital Development: Facts and figures 2022. Genève (Suisse). https://tinyurl.com/2yexx6wy.

124. UIT. 2011. The world in 2011: ICT facts and figures. Genève (Suisse). https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/facts/2011/material/ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf.

125. Les estimations de l’UIT correspondent au nombre de personnes ayant utilisé internet dans les trois derniers mois. Sont incluses les personnes utilisant internet au moyen d’une connexion fixe ou sur un appareil partagé qu’elles ne possèdent pas, ou encore les personnes utilisant internet sur des appareils appartenant à des amis ou à des membres de leur famille.

126. UIT. 2023. Measuring digital development: Facts and figures: Focus on Least Developed Countries. Genève (Suisse). https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-for-LDC/.

127. Est considérée comme possédant un téléphone portable toute personne qui a l’usage principal ou exclusif d’une carte SIM (ou d’un téléphone portable fonctionnant sans carte SIM), et qui l’utilise au moins une fois par mois.

128. GSMA. 2022. The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022. Londres. https://tinyurl.com/3vc6jn3e.

129. La GSMA a aimablement communiqué ces données à la FAO. L’enquête a porté sur des échantillons nationaux représentatifs de la population adulte (18 ans et plus). Au moins 1 000 entretiens ont été menés dans chaque pays, et 2 000 entretiens ont été effectués en Inde.

130. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., et Ansar, S. 2021. Global Findex Database 2021: Financial inclusion, digital payments, and resilience in the age of COVID-19. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex.

131. Gammage, S., Kes, A., Winograd, L., Sultana, N., Hiller, S., et Bourgault, S. 2017. Gender and digital financial inclusion: What do we know and what do we need to know? Centre international de recherche sur les femmes, Washington.

132. Ambler, K., De Brauw, A., et Godlonton, S. 2018. Agriculture support services in Malawi: Direct effects, complementarities, and time dynamics. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 1725. IFPRI, Washington.

133. Villasenor, J. D., West, D. M., et Lewis, R. J. 2016. The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project Report. Advancing Equitable Financial Ecosystems. Centre de recherche sur l’innovation technologique de l’Institut Brookings, Washington.

134. Akter, S., Krupnik, T. J., Rossi, F., et Khanam, F. 2016. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38: 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.010.

135. Bageant, E. R., et Barrett, C. B. 2017. Are There gender differences in demand for index-based livestock insurance? The Journal of Development Studies, 53(6): 932-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1214717.

136. Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R. V., et Petraud, J. P. 2015. Managing risk with insurance and savings: Experimental evidence for male and female farm managers in West Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1426. IFPRI, Washington. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/129071.

137. Arnold, J., El-Zoghbi, M., et Kessler, A. 2019. Normative constraints to women’s financial inclusion: What we know and what we need to know. Centre pour l’inclusion financière. https://tinyurl.com/2c4goywt.

138. Kim, K. 2022. Assessing the impact of mobile money on improving the financial inclusion of Nairobi women. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(3): 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1884536.

139. Suri, T., et Jack, W. 2016. The long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money. Science, 354(6317): 1288-1292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5309.

140. Wandibba, S., Nangendo, S. M., et Mulemi, B. A. 2014. Gender empowerment and access to financial services in Machakos county, eastern Kenya. Institut de recherche sur l’argent, la technologie et l’inclusion financière, Irvine (États-Unis d’Amérique).

141. Dorfleitner, G., et Nguyen, Q. A. 2022. Mobile money for women’s economic empowerment: The mediating role of financial management practices. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00564-2.

142. Holmes, R., et Jones, N. 2013. Gender and social protection in the developing world: Beyond mothers and safety nets. Bloomsbury Publishing, Londres.

143. Beegle, K., Coudouel, A., et Monsalve, E. 2018. Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa. Africa Development Forum series. Banque Mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1164-7.

144. Davis, B., Handa, S., Hypher, N., Rossi, N. W., Winters, P., et Yablonski, J. 2016. From evidence to action: The story of cash transfers and impact evaluation in sub Saharan Africa. Oxford University Press.

145. Jones, N. 2021. Gender and social protection. In E. Schüring et M. Loewe (sous la direction de). Handbook on social protection systems. Elgar Handbooks in Social Policy and Welfare. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109119.

146. OIT. 2021. Rapport mondial sur la protection sociale 2020-2022: la protection sociale à la croisée des chemins – bâtir un avenir meilleur. Genève (Suisse).

147. FAO. 2022. Improving social protection for rural populations in Europe and Central Asia – Priorities for FAO. Budapest. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1925en.

148. FAO. 2018. Guide technique 1 de la FAO – Présentation des programmes de protection sociale sensibles au genre visant à lutter contre la pauvreté rurale: pourquoi sont-ils importants et en quoi consistent-ils? Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/CA2026FR/ca2026fr.pdf.

149. Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A., et Gilligan, D. O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1903. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133551.

150. Bonilla, J., Zarzur, R. C., Handa, S., Nowlin, C., Peterman, A., Ring, H., Seidenfeld, D., et Team, Z.C.G.P.E. 2017. Cash for women’s empowerment? A mixed-methods evaluation of the Government of Zambia’s child grant program. World Development, 95: 55-72.

151. De la O Campos, A. P. 2015. Empowering rural women through social protection. Rural Transformations – Technical Papers Series #2. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i4696e/i4696e.pdf.

152. FAO. 2018. Guide technique 2 de la FAO – Intégrer le genre dans la conception de programmes de transferts en espèces et de travaux publics. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ca2038fr/CA2038FR.pdf.
Akresh, R., De Walque, D., et Kazianga, H. 2016. Evidence from a randomized evaluation of the household welfare impacts of conditional and unconditional cash transfers given to mothers or fathers. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7730. Banque mondiale, Washington.

153. Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B. A., et Sverdlin-Lisker, D. 2022. Social protection in the developing world. Working paper. https://tinyurl.com/2cz424hf.

154. Benhassine, N., Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., et Pouliquen, V. 2015. Turning a shove into a nudge? A” labeled cash transfer” for education. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(3): 86-125.

155. Haushofer, J., et Shapiro, J. 2016. The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4): 1973-2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025.

156. Handa, S., Peterman, A., Davis, B., et Stampini, M. 2009. Opening up Pandora’s box: The effect of gender targeting and conditionality on household spending behavior in Mexico’s Progresa program. World Development, 37(6): 1129-1142.

157. Camilletti, E. 2021. Social protection and its effects on gender equality: A literature review. Innocenti Working Papers. Centre de recherche Innocenti de l’UNICEF, Florence (Italie). https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/papers/10.18356/25206796-2020-16.

158. Yoong, J., Rabinovich, L., et Diepeveen, S. 2012. The impact of economic resource transfers to women versus men: A systematic review. Technical Report. Centre EPPI, Unité de recherches en sciences sociales, Institut de l’éducation, Université de Londres, Londres.

159. Jenson, J. 2009. Lost in translation: The social investment perspective and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 16(4): 446-483. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxp019.

160. Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A., et Gilligan, D. O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01903. IFPRI, Washington.

161. Soares, F. V., et Silva, E. 2010. Conditional cash transfer programmes and gender vulnerabilities in Latin America: Case studies from Brazil, Chile and Colombia. Institut de développement outre-mer, Londres.

162. Klugman, J., Kellison, E., et Ortiz, E. 2021. Mobile phone technologies as an opportunity for women’s financial inclusion: What does the evidence say? In E. Lechman (sous la direction de). Technology and women’s empowerment. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

163. Andrews, C., de Montesquiou, A., Sánchez, I. A., Dutta, P. V., Samaranayake, S., Heisey, J., Clay, T., et Chaudhary, S. 2021. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The potential to scale. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34917.

164. Carter, B., Roelen, K., Enfield, S., et Avis, W. 2019. Social protection topic guide, revised edition. K4D Emerging Issues Report. Institut sur les études du développement, Brighton (Royaume-Uni).

165. Chang, W., Diaz-Martin, L., Gopalan, A., Guarnieri, E., Jayachandran, S., et Walsh, C. 2020. What works to enhance women’s agency: Cross-cutting lessons from experimental and quasi-experimental studies. J-PAL Working Paper.

166. Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B., Karlan, D., Kazianga, H., Parienté, W., Premand, P. et al. 2022. Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature, 605: 291-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8.

167. Karimli, L., Bose, B., et Kagotho, N. 2020. Integrated graduation program and its effect on women and household economic well-being: Findings from a randomised controlled trial in Burkina Faso. The Journal of Development Studies, 56(7): 1277-1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1677887.

168. Bedoya, G., Coville, A., Haushofer, J., Isaqzadeh, M., et Shapiro, J. P. 2019. No household left behind: Afghanistan targeting the ultra poor impact evaluation. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 8877. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://tinyurl.com/2xzglljn.

Chapitre 3

1. Kosec, K., Hidrobo, M., Gartaula, H., Van Campenhout, B., et Carrillo, L. 2023. Making complementary agricultural resources, technologies, and services more gender-responsive. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya). https://gender.cgiar.org/SWAFS-2023.

2. Doss, C., et Mika, H. 2021. This land is her land: A comparative analysis of gender, institutions, and landownership. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2089. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134943.

3. UNICEF. 2023. Girls’ education: Gender equality in education benefits every child. In UNICEF. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.unicef.org/education/girls-education (consulté le 1er février 2023).

4. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO). 2020. Rapport mondial de suivi sur l’éducation 2020 – Rapport sur l’égalité des genres: Une nouvelle génération: 25 ans d’efforts pour atteindre l’égalité des genres dans l’éducation. Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375469.

1. UNESCO (2020), figure 5.

5. FAO. 2012. Directives volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux forêts dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire nationale. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i2801f/i2801f.pdf.

6. La présente section s’appuie principalement sur les informations communiquées par les pays au sujet des indicateurs 5.a.1 et 5.a.2 des ODD, dont la FAO est l’organisme garant.

7. Les renseignements fournis dans la présente section s’appuient sur les données communiquées par les pays au sujet de l’indicateur 5.a.2 des ODD. Dans la mesure où les déclarations des pays ne fournissent qu’un seul point de référence dans le temps, d’autres sources en accès libre sur les lois et les réformes juridiques antérieures à 2010 et postérieures aux déclarations des pays ont été consultées pour recenser les modifications qui ont été apportées aux textes de loi depuis l’édition 2010-2011 du rapport sur La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture.

8. Les différents régimes de répartition des biens entre époux peuvent être classés comme suit: i) séparation de biens: tous les types de biens acquis avant ou pendant le mariage restent des biens propres à chacun des conjoints; ii) communauté partielle de biens: les biens acquis pendant le mariage deviennent des biens communs, mais ceux qui ont été acquis avant le mariage et reçus par héritage restent propres à chacun des conjoints; iii) communauté universelle de biens: tous les biens acquis avant ou pendant le mariage deviennent des biens communs; et iv) communauté de biens différée totale ou partielle: les biens acquis par le mari ou la femme avant et pendant le mariage restent, en tout ou partie, la propriété de la personne qui les avait acquis, mais en cas de dissolution du mariage, les biens sont partagés (Almodóvar-Reteguis, N., Kushnir, K., et Meilland, T. 2011. Mapping the legal gender gap in using property and building credit. Women, Business and the Law Topic Note. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://tinyurl.com/48s6w3e8.). D’après les données communiquées sur l’indicateur 5.a.2, la plupart des pays disposent d’un régime matrimonial principal, tandis que d’autres pays permettent de choisir entre différents régimes ou ne réglementent pas les effets du mariage. Souvent, le régime par défaut qui encadre la répartition des biens entre époux empiète sur d’autres régimes ayant trait à l’acquisition de terres ou de biens, comme le droit coutumier ou religieux.

9. Il existe certaines exceptions, par exemple: Kenya. Matrimonial Property Act, 2013; Kenya. Marriage Act, 2014; et Gabon. Loi N° 004/2021 du 15/09/2021 portant modification de certaines dispositions de la loi portant Code Civil, 2021.

10. Parmi les exemples intéressants, on peut citer le Mali et le Sénégal, où l’égalité des droits de succession entre les femmes et les hommes est la règle, tant que la personne ne choisit pas explicitement le régime musulman (ou coutumier) qui ne reconnaît pas cette égalité (Mali. Loi N°2011 – 087 portant Code des personnes et de la famille, 2011; Sénégal. Loi N° 72–61 portant Code de la famille, 1972).

11. Kenya. Land registration Act, Cap. 300, 2012.

12. Bolivie (État plurinational de). Ley Nº 3545 – Modifica la Ley Nº 1715, Servicio Nacional de Reforma Agraria, 2006.

13. République dominicaine. Ley Nº 55 – Modifica la Ley Nº 5.879 de 1962 sobre Reforma Agraria, 1997.

14. Népal. Financial Bills 2020, pour les provinces suivantes: 1, 2, Bagmati, Gandaki, Lumbini, Karnali et Sudur Paschim.

15. Thaïlande. Regulations of the Department of Lands Regarding the registration of spouse’s signature and dividing property between spouses in land and other immovable properties, B.E. 2553, 2010.

16. Le dernier exemple en date est la Sierra Leone, où d’importantes réformes ont été mises en place en 2022 (Sierra Leone. The Customary Land Rights Act, 2022; Sierra Leone. The National Land Commission Act, 2022; Sierra Leone. The Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Act, 2022). Ces réformes ne sont pas encore prises en compte dans les résultats figurant dans la présente publication.

17. La recommandation générale no 25 concernant le premier paragraphe de l’article 4 de la Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes porte sur l’utilisation de mesures temporaires spéciales pour lutter contre les disparités de genre et accélérer la concrétisation d’une égalité de fait entre les femmes et les hommes. Les mesures temporaires spéciales, aussi appelées «mesures d’action affirmative» ou «mesures de discrimination positive», comprennent des instruments législatifs, exécutifs, administratifs et réglementaires, ainsi que l’affectation ou la redistribution de ressources, le traitement préférentiel et les contingentements (paragraphe 22). Comité pour l’élimination de la discrimination à l’égard des femmes, Recommandation générale No 25 concernant le premier paragraphe de l’article 4 de la Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes, portant sur les mesures temporaires spéciales, 2004. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/General%20recommendation%2025%20(French).pdf.

18. Bayisenge, J., Höjer, S., et Espling, M. 2015. Women’s land rights in the context of the land tenure reform in Rwanda – the experiences of policy implementers. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 9(1): 74-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2014.985496.

19. Deininger, K., Goyal, A., et Nagarajan, H. 2013. Women’s inheritance rights and intergenerational transmission of resources in India. Journal of Human Resources, 48(1): 114-141.

20. Gaddis, I., Lahoti, R., et Swaminathan, H. 2022. Women’s legal rights and gender gaps in property ownership in developing countries. Population and Development Review, 48(2): 331-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12493.

21. Cette conclusion s’appuie sur l’analyse d’un échantillon de 28 pays pour lesquels on dispose d’informations sur le nombre de protections juridiques des droits fonciers des femmes (d’après l’indicateur 5.a.2) et d’estimations de l’écart femmes-hommes en matière d’accès à la propriété foncière au sein des populations agricoles (exprimé en pourcentage par rapport au taux de propriété foncière chez les hommes).

22. Prindex. 2020. Women’s perceptions of tenure security: Evidence from 140 countries. Londres. https://prindex.net/reports/womens-perceptions-tenure-security-evidence-140-countries/. Dans le cadre des enquêtes Prindex, effectuées dans 140 pays du monde, il a été demandé à des femmes et à des hommes d’évaluer quelle était la probabilité qu’ils perdent leur droit de propriété sur la totalité ou une partie de leurs biens contre leur gré dans les cinq prochaines années. On a également demandé à des femmes et à des hommes mariés s’ils s’inquiétaient de perdre des biens fonciers en cas de divorce ou de décès de leur époux ou de leur épouse. Dans tous les pays, ces questions ont été posées au sujet de la propriété principale, c’est-à-dire la maison, et d’une autre propriété. L’analyse développée dans le présent document porte principalement sur un sous-échantillon de 70 pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire et sur les réponses intéressant l’agriculture.

23. Un grand nombre de questions, concernant les inquiétudes relatives à l’accès à l’eau et la disponibilité de l’eau pour des tâches ménagères précises, sont posées aux personnes interrogées. On ne leur demande rien au sujet de l’accès à l’eau à des fins productives, et on ne cherche pas à savoir quel membre du ménage prend en charge les tâches ménagères ou les activités de collecte de l’eau (Northwestern University. n.d. The HWISE scale. Evanston (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://doi.org/10.21985/n2-1g6s-6a43).

24. Young, S. L., Bethancourt, H. J., Ritter, Z. R., et Frongillo, E. A. 2022. Estimating national, demographic, and socioeconomic disparities in water insecurity experiences in low-income and middle-income countries in 2020–21: A cross-sectional, observational study using nationally representative survey data. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(11): e880-e891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00241-8.

25. Wutich, A. 2009. Intrahousehold disparities in women and men’s experiences of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban Bolivia. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 23(4): 436-454.

26. Pearson, A. L., Mack, E. A., Ross, A., Marcantonio, R., Zimmer, A., Bunting, E. L., Smith, A. C. et al. 2021. Interpersonal conflict over water is associated with household demographics, domains of water insecurity, and regional conflict: Evidence from nine sites across eight sub-Saharan African countries. Water, 13(9): 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091150.

27. Clement, F., et Nicol, A. 2019. Gender, poverty and politics along the real-virtual water spectrum. In T. Allan, B. Bromwich, M. Keulertz et A. Colman (sous la direction de). The Oxford handbook of food, water and society, p. 250-267. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190669799.013.63.

28. Joshi, D., Monterroso, I., Gallant, B., Perera, K., et Peveri, V. 2021. A gender–natural resources tango: Water, land, and forest research. In R. Pyburn et A. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 221-258. IFPRI, Washington.

29. Nauges, C., et Strand, J. 2013. Water hauling and girls’ school attendance. Some new evidence from Ghana. Policy Research Working Paper 6443. Banque Mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6443.

30. Van Houweling, E., Hall, R. P., Diop, A. S., Davis, J., et Seiss, M. 2012. The role of productive water use in women’s livelihoods: Evidence from rural Senegal. Water Alternatives, 5(3): 658-677.

31. Caruso, B. A., Conrad, A., Patrick, M., Owens, A., Kviten, K., Zarella, O., Rogers, H., et Sinharoy, S. S. 2022. Water, sanitation, and women’s empowerment: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis. PLOS Water, 1(6): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000026.

32. Mekonnen, D. K., Choufani, J., Bryan, E., Haile, B., et Ringler, C. 2022. Irrigation improves weight-for-height z-scores of children under five, and women’s and household dietary diversity scores in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 18(4): e13395. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.13395.

33. Mitra, A., et Rao, N. 2019. Gender, water, and nutrition in India: An intersectional perspective. Water Alternatives, 12(1): 169-191.

34. Doss, C., et Meinzen-Dick, R. 2020. Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy, 99: 105080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105080.

35. Meinzen-Dick, R., et Zwarteveen, M. 1998. Gendered participation in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users’ associations in South Asia. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(4): 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007533018254.

36. Theis, S., Bryan, E., et Ringler, C. 2019. Addressing gender and social dynamics to strengthen resilience for all. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick et J. Njuki (sous la direction de). 2019 Annual trends and outlook report: Gender equality in rural Africa: From commitments to outcomes, p. 126-139. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293649_09.

37. Van Koppen, B. 1998. Water rights, gender, and poverty alleviation. Inclusion and exclusion of women and men smallholders in public irrigation infrastructure development. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(4): 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007537119163.

38. ONU-Femmes et DESA. 2021. Progrès vers la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable – Gros plan sur l’égalité des sexes 2021. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

39. Anríquez, G., Quiñonez, F., et Foster, W. (à paraître). Levelling the farm fields, A cross-country study of the determinants of gender-based yield gaps. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023.

40. Les limites de l’approche consistant à s’intéresser essentiellement au chef de famille sont abordées en profondeur dans la littérature (voir également l’encadré 2.10 du chapitre 2). Dans le présent chapitre, nous nous appuyons sur toutes les sources d’information, tant au niveau des individus qu’au niveau des ménages, pour trouver des signes indiquant une évolution dans le temps de l’accès aux ressources pour tous les groupes de femmes au sein des systèmes agroalimentaires.

41. Njuki, J., Waithanji, E., Sakwa, B., Kariuki, J., Mukewa, E., et Ngige, J. 2014. A qualitative assessment of gender and irrigation technology in Kenya and Tanzania. Gender, Technology and Development, 18(3): 303-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852414544010.

42. Kulkarni, S. 2012. Redefining irrigation as if gender mattered. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Highlight, 14. Institut international de gestion des ressources en eau, Colombo (Sri Lanka).

43. Dickin, S., Segnestam, L., et Sou Dakouré, M. 2021. Women’s vulnerability to climate-related risks to household water security in Centre-East, Burkina Faso. Climate and Development, 13(5): 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1790335.

44. Horbulyk, T., et Balasubramanya, S. 2018. Impact of water users associations on water and land productivity, equity and food security in Tajikistan. Rapport final, volume 1. Institut international de gestion des ressources en eau, Colombo (Sri Lanka).

45. Sugden, F., Maskey, N., Clement, F., Ramesh, V., Philip, A., et Rai, A. 2014. Agrarian stress and climate change in the Eastern Gangetic Plains: Gendered vulnerability in a stratified social formation. Global Environmental Change, 29: 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.008.

46. Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D., et MacMillan, S. 2014. Livestock and women’s livelihoods. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman et A. Peterman (sous la direction de). Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap, p. 209-233. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (Pays-Bas). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_9.

47. Acosta, A., Nicolli, F., et Karfakis, P. 2021. Coping with climate shocks: The complex role of livestock portfolios. World Development, 146: 105546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105546.

48. McKune, S. L., Borresen, E. C., Young, A. G., Auria Ryley, T. D., Russo, S. L., Diao Camara, A., Coleman, M., et Ryan, E. P. 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.

49. Bain, C., Ransom, E., et Halimatusa’diyah, I. 2020. Dairy livestock interventions for food security in Uganda: What are the implications for women’s empowerment? Rural Sociology, 85(4): 991-1020.

50. Galiè, A., Teufel, N., Girard, A. W., Baltenweck, I., Dominguez-Salas, P., Price, M. J., Jones, R. et al. 2019. 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.

51. Gitungwa, H., Gustafson, C. R., Jimenez, E. Y., Peterson, E. W., Mwanzalila, M., Makweta, A., Komba, E., Kazwala, R. R., Mazet, J. A. K., et VanWormer, E. 2021. Female and male-controlled livestock holdings impact pastoralist food security and women’s dietary diversity. One Health Outlook, 3(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42522-020-00032-5.

52. Les unités de bétail tropical servent d’unité de mesure commune pour différentes espèces de bétail auxquelles sont attribuées un coefficient de conversion type (voir le tableau 6 dans Ahmed, M. H., et Mesfin, H. M. 2017. The impact of agricultural cooperatives membership on the wellbeing of smallholder farmers: empirical evidence from eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 5: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-017-0075-z.

53. Il est difficile d’effectuer une comparaison avec les résultats observés au niveau des ménages en raison du manque de données disponibles.

54. Banque mondiale. 2023. Generating relevant data for policy makers and the research community. In Banque mondiale. Washington (États-Unis). https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/collections/lsms (consulté le 4 février 2023).

55. Cette conclusion confirme qu’il est important de commencer à privilégier autant que possible les données au niveau individuel plutôt que la collecte de données ventilées selon le sexe du chef de famille. Dans ce dernier cas, les données recueillies reflètent souvent la situation de ménages dirigés par des femmes qui sont plus défavorisés (par exemple, des ménages dont le chef de famille est une femme veuve).

56. Elias, M., Zaremba, H., Tavenner, K., Ragasa, C., Paez Valencia, A. M., Choudhury, A., et de Haan, N. 2023. Beyond crops: Towards gender equality in forestry, fisheries, aquaculture and livestock development. Background paper for The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems report, 2023. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya). https://gender.cgiar.org/SWAFS-2023.

57. Dumas, S. E., Maranga, A., Mbullo, P., Collins, S., Wekesa, P., Onono, M., et Young, S. L. 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.

58. Njuki, J., et Sangina, P. C. (sous la direction de). 2013. Women, livestock ownership and markets: Bridging the gender gap in eastern and southern Africa. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni). https://tinyurl.com/27k3qqqa.

59. Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2012. Invisible guardians: Women manage livestock diversity. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No.174. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3018e.pdf.

60. Baltenweck, I., Achandi, E., Bullock, R., Campbell, Z., Crane, T., Eldermire, E., Gichuki, L. et al. 2021. What can we learn from the literature about livestock interventions and women’s empowerment? ILRI Research Brief 105. ILRI, Nairobi. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/117227.

61. Chanamuto, N. J. C., et Hall, S. J. G. 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.

62. Tavenner, K., van Wijk, M., Fraval, S., Hammond, J., Baltenweck, I., Teufel, N., Kihoro, E., et al. 2019. Intensifying inequality? Gendered trends in commercializing and diversifying smallholder farming systems in East Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00010.

63. Serra, R., Harris-Coble, L., Dickerson, A. J., Povedano, S. A., et Pinzon, S. 2018. Gender and livestock value chains annotated bibliography. Laboratoire d’innovation Feed the Future pour les systèmes d’élevage, Gainesville (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://tinyurl.com/2n6gfapn.

64. Flintan, F. 2021. Pastoral women, tenure, and governance. PIM Flagship Brief December 2021. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134947.

65. ILRI. 2021. Losing livestock, losing land, losing face: Pastoralist women and change in Gujarat, India. Nairobi. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117283.

66. Njuguna-Mungai, E., Omondi, I., Galiè, A., Jumba, H., Derseh, M., Paul, B. K., Zenebe, M., Juma, A., et Duncan, A. 2022. Gender dynamics around introduction of improved forages in Kenya and Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal, 114(1): 277-295.

67. Ransom, E., Bain, C., Bal, H., et Shannon, N. 2017. Cattle as technological interventions: The gender effects of water demand in dairy production in Uganda. FACETS, 2: 715-732. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0031.

68. Silong, A. K. F., et Gadanakis, Y. 2020. Credit sources, access and factors influencing credit demand among rural livestock farmers in Nigeria. Agricultural Finance Review, 80(1): 68-90.

69. Acosta, D., Ludgate, N., McKune, S. L., et Russo, S. 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.

70. McKune, S., Serra, R., et Touré, A. 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.

71. Quisumbing, A. R., et Doss, C. R. 2021. Chapter 82—Gender in agriculture and food systems. In C. B. Barrett et D. R. Just (sous la direction de). Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 5: 4481-4549. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesagr.2021.10.009.

72. Anderson, C. L., Reynolds, T. W., Biscaye, P., Patwardhan, V., et Schmidt, C. 2021. Economic benefits of empowering women in agriculture: Assumptions and evidence. The Journal of Development Studies, 57(2): 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1769071.

73. Kaminski, A. M., Cole, S. M., Al Haddad, R. E., Kefi, A. S., Chilala, A. D., Chisule, G., Mukuka, K. N., Longley, C., Teoh, S. J., et Ward, A. R. 2020. Fish losses for whom? A gendered assessment of post-harvest losses in the Barotse Floodplain Fishery, Zambia. Sustainability, 12(23): 10091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310091.

74. Fischer, G., Wittich, S., Malima, G., Sikumba, G., Lukuyu, B., Ngunga, D., et Rugalabam, J. 2018. Gender and mechanization: Exploring the sustainability of mechanized forage chopping in Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 64: 112-122.

75. Houmy, K., Clarke, L. J., Ashburner, J. E., et Kienzle, J. 2013. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: Guidelines for preparing a strategy. Integrated Crop Management, 22. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i3349e/i3349e.pdf.

76. FAO. 2022. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2022. L’automatisation de l’agriculture au service de la transformation des systèmes agroalimentaires. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9479fr.

77. Vemireddy, V., et Choudhary, A. 2021. A systematic review of labor-saving technologies: Implications for women in agriculture. Global Food Security, 29: 100541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100541.

78. Caunedo, J., et Kala, N. 2021. Mechanizing agriculture. NBER Working Paper Series No. 29061. Bureau national de recherche économique, Cambridge (États-Unis d’Amérique).

79. Christiaensen, L., Rutledge, Z., et Taylor, J. E. 2021. Viewpoint: The future of work in agri-food. Food Policy, 99: 101963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101963.

80. Farnworth, C. R., Bharati, P., Krishna, V. V., Roeven, L., et Badstue, L. 2022. Caste-gender intersectionalities in wheat-growing communities in Madhya Pradesh, India. Gender, Technology and Development, 26(1): 28-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2022.2034096.

81. Afridi, F., Bishnu, M., et Mahajan, K. 2023. Gender and mechanization: Evidence from Indian agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 105(1): 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12315.

82. Farnworth, C. R., San, A. M., Kundu, N. D., Islam, M. M., Jahan, R., Depenbusch, L., Nair, R. M., Myint, T., et Schreinemachers, P. 2020. How will mechanizing mung bean harvesting affect women hired laborers in Myanmar and Bangladesh? Sustainability, 12(19): 7870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197870.

83. Paris, T. R., et Chi, T. T. N. 2005. The impact of row seeder technology on women labor: A case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Gender, Technology and Development, 9(2): 157-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240500900201.

84. Daum, T., Adegbola, Y. P., Kamau, G., Kergna, A. O., Daudu, C., Zossou, R. C., Crinot, G. F. et al. 2020. Perceived effects of farm tractors in four African countries, highlighted by participatory impact diagrams. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(6): 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00651-2.

85. Baudron, F., Misiko, M., Getnet, B., Nazare, R., Sariah, J., et Kaumbutho, P. 2019. A farm-level assessment of labor and mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39: 1-13.

86. Achandi, E. L., Mujawamariya, G., Agboh-Noameshie, A. R., Gebremariam, S., Rahalivavololona, N., et Rodenburg, J. 2018. Women’s access to agricultural technologies in rice production and processing hubs: A comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Madagascar and Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 60: 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.011.

87. Croppenstedt, A., Goldstein, M., et Rosas, N. 2013. Gender and agriculture: Inefficiencies, segregation, and low productivity traps. The World Bank Research Observer, 28: 79-109.

88. Huyer, S. 2016. Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(2): 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852416643872.

89. Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal, P. et al. 2016. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development, 8(2): 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978.

90. Theis, S., Lefore, N., Meinzen-Dick, R., et Bryan, E. 2018. What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(3): 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9862-8.

91. Kawarazuka, N. 2018. Agricultural mechanization: How far do women farmers benefit? In CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas. https://www.rtb.cgiar.org/news/agricultural-mechanization-far-women-farmers-benefit/ (consulté le 31 janvier 2023).

92. Paris, T., Diaz, C., et Hossain, I. 2011. Participatory evaluation of a rice flour mill by poor rural women. Gender, Technology and Development, 15(2): 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185241101500205.

93. Gebre, G. G., Isoda, H., Rahut, D. B., Amekawa, Y., et Nomura, H. 2021. Gender gaps in market participation among individual and joint decision-making farm households: Evidence from southern Ethiopia. European Journal of Development Research, 33: 649-683. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00289-6.

94. Coulter, J. E., Witinok-Huber, R. A., Bruyere, B. L., et Dorothy Nyingi, W. 2019. Giving women a voice on decision-making about water: Barriers and opportunities in Laikipia, Kenya. Gender, Place & Culture, 26(4): 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1502163.

95. Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Huyer, S., et van Huysen, T. 2020. Gender-responsive rural climate services: A review of the literature. Climate and Development, 12(3): 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1613216.

96. Manfre, C., Rubin, D., Allen, A., Summerfield, G., Colverson, K., et Akeredolu, M. 2013. Reducing the gender gap in agricultural extension and advisory services: How to find the best fit for men and women farmers. MEAS Brief #2. Discussion Paper. Projet «Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services», Urbana, (États-Unis d’Amérique).

97. Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadesse, F., et Taffesse, A. S. 2013. Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(5): 437-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.817343.

98. Galiè, A. 2013. Empowering women farmers: The case of participatory plant breeding in ten Syrian households. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 34(1): 58-92.

99. Memon, Q. U. A., Wagan, S. A., Chunyu, D., Shuangxi, X., Jingdong, L., et Damalas, C. A. 2019. Health problems from pesticide exposure and personal protective measures among women cotton workers in southern Pakistan. Science of The Total Environment, 685: 659-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.173.

100. Mrema, E. J., Ngowi, A. V., Kishinhi, S. S., et Mamuya, S. H. 2017. Pesticide exposure and health problems among female horticulture workers in Tanzania. Environmental Health Insights, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178630217715237.

101. Mudege, N. N., Mdege, N., Abidin, P. E., et Bhatasara, S. 2017. The role of gender norms in access to agricultural training in Chikwawa and Phalombe, Malawi. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(12): 1689-1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1383363.

102. Huyer, S., Gumucio, T., Tavenner, K., Acosta, M., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Mungai, C. et al. 2021. From vulnerability to agency in climate adaptation and mitigation. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 261-294. IFPRI, Washington.

103. Lamontagne-Godwin, J., Williams, F. E., Aslam, N., Cardey, S., Dorward, P., et Almas, M. 2018. Gender differences in use and preferences of agricultural information sources in Pakistan. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 24(5): 419-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1491870.

104. Kosec, K., et Wantchekon, L. 2020. Can information improve rural governance and service delivery? World Development, 125: 104376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.017.

105. Malapit, H., Heckert, J., Scott, J., Padmaja, R., et Quisumbing, A. 2021. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture for gender equality. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 189-218. IFPRI, Washington.

106. Ingutia, R., et Sumelius, J. 2022. Determinants of food security status with reference to women farmers in rural Kenya. Scientific African, 15: e01114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01114.

107. Magnan, N., Spielman, D. J., Lybbert, T. J., et Gulati, K. 2015. Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers’ demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits. Journal of Development Economics, 116: 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.05.003.

108. Po, J. Y. T., et Hickey, G. M. 2020. Cross-scale relationships between social capital and women’s participation in decision-making on the farm: A multilevel study in semi-arid Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies, 78: 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.04.024.

109. Raghunathan, K., Kannan, S., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2019. Can women’s self-help groups improve access to information, decision-making, and agricultural practices? The Indian case. Agricultural Economics, 50(5): 567-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12510.

110. Coleman, E. A., et Mwangi. E. 2013. Women’s participation in forest management: A cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23: 193-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.005.

111. Beaman, L., et Dillon, A. 2018. Diffusion of agricultural information within social networks: Evidence on gender inequalities from Mali. Journal of Development Economics, 133: 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.01.009.

112. Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J. A., Pandolfelli, L., Peterman, A., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2014. Gender and social capital for agricultural development. In A. R. Quisumbing, R. Meinzen-Dick, T. L. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, J. A. Behrman et A. Peterman (sous la direction de). Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap, p. 235-266. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (Pays-Bas). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_10.

113. Brulé, R., et Gaikwad, N. 2021. Culture, capital, and the political economy gender gap: Evidence from Meghalaya’s matrilineal tribes. The Journal of Politics, 83(3): 834-850. https://doi.org/10.1086/711176.

114. Cheema, A., Khan, S., Liaqat, A., et Mohmand, S. K. 2022. Canvassing the gatekeepers: A field experiment to increase women voters’ turnout in Pakistan. American Political Science Review, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000375.

115. Robinson, A. L., et Gottlieb, J. 2021. How to close the gender gap in political participation: Lessons from matrilineal societies in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 68-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000650.

116. Preece, J. R. 2016. Mind the gender gap: An experiment on the influence of self-efficacy on political interest. Politics & Gender, 12(1): 198-217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X15000628.

117. Kaaria, S., Osorio, M., Wagner, S., Gallina, A., Kaaria, S., Osorio, M., Wagner, S., et Gallina, A. 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.

118. Kosec, K., Bleck, J., et Gottlieb, J. 2022. FR2.3: Women’s voices in civil society organizations: Evidence from a civil society mapping project in Mali. Presented at the CGIAR GENDER Science Exchange, Nairobi, 12–14 October 2022. IFPRI, Washington. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/125611.

119. OCDE. 2014. Science, technologie et industrie: Perspectives de l’OCDE. Éditions OCDE, Paris. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/science-and-technology/science-technologie-et-industrie-perspectives-de-l-ocde_20747152.

120. Winther, T., Matinga, M. N, Ulsrud, K., et Standal, K. 2017. Women’s empowerment through electricity access: scoping study and proposal for a framework of analysis. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(3): 389-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1343368.

121. Pueyo, A., et Maestre, M. 2019. Linking energy access, gender and poverty: A review of the literature on productive uses of energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 53: 170-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.019.

122. Union internationale des télécommunications (UIT). 2022. Measuring Digital Development: Facts and figures 2022. Genève (Suisse). https://tinyurl.com/2yexx6wy.

123. UIT. 2011. The world in 2011: ICT facts and figures. Genève (Suisse). https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/facts/2011/material/ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf.

124. Les estimations de l’UIT correspondent au nombre de personnes ayant utilisé internet dans les trois derniers mois. Sont incluses les personnes utilisant internet au moyen d’une connexion fixe ou sur un appareil partagé qu’elles ne possèdent pas, ou encore les personnes utilisant internet sur des appareils appartenant à des amis ou à des membres de leur famille.

125. UIT. 2023. Measuring digital development: Facts and figures: Focus on Least Developed Countries. Genève (Suisse). https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-for-LDC/.

126. Est considérée comme possédant un téléphone portable toute personne qui a l’usage principal ou exclusif d’une carte SIM (ou d’un téléphone portable fonctionnant sans carte SIM), et qui l’utilise au moins une fois par mois.

127. GSMA. 2022. The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2022. Londres. https://tinyurl.com/3vc6jn3e.

128. La GSMA a aimablement communiqué ces données à la FAO. L’enquête a porté sur des échantillons nationaux représentatifs de la population adulte (18 ans et plus). Au moins 1 000 entretiens ont été menés dans chaque pays, et 2 000 entretiens ont été effectués en Inde.

129. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., et Ansar, S. 2021. Global Findex Database 2021: Financial inclusion, digital payments, and resilience in the age of COVID-19. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex.

130. Gammage, S., Kes, A., Winograd, L., Sultana, N., Hiller, S., et Bourgault, S. 2017. Gender and digital financial inclusion: What do we know and what do we need to know? Centre international de recherche sur les femmes, Washington.

131. Ambler, K., De Brauw, A., et Godlonton, S. 2018. Agriculture support services in Malawi: Direct effects, complementarities, and time dynamics. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 1725. IFPRI, Washington.

132. Villasenor, J. D., West, D. M., et Lewis, R. J. 2016. The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project Report. Advancing Equitable Financial Ecosystems. Centre de recherche sur l’innovation technologique de l’Institut Brookings, Washington.

133. Akter, S., Krupnik, T. J., Rossi, F., et Khanam, F. 2016. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38: 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.010.

134. Bageant, E. R., et Barrett, C. B. 2017. Are There gender differences in demand for index-based livestock insurance? The Journal of Development Studies, 53(6): 932-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1214717.

135. Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R. V., et Petraud, J. P. 2015. Managing risk with insurance and savings: Experimental evidence for male and female farm managers in West Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1426. IFPRI, Washington. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/129071.

136. Arnold, J., El-Zoghbi, M., et Kessler, A. 2019. Normative constraints to women’s financial inclusion: What we know and what we need to know. Centre pour l’inclusion financière. https://tinyurl.com/2c4goywt.

137. Kim, K. 2022. Assessing the impact of mobile money on improving the financial inclusion of Nairobi women. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(3): 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1884536.

138. Suri, T., et Jack, W. 2016. The long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money. Science, 354(6317): 1288-1292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5309.

139. Wandibba, S., Nangendo, S. M., et Mulemi, B. A. 2014. Gender empowerment and access to financial services in Machakos county, eastern Kenya. Institut de recherche sur l’argent, la technologie et l’inclusion financière, Irvine (États-Unis d’Amérique).

140. Dorfleitner, G., et Nguyen, Q. A. 2022. Mobile money for women’s economic empowerment: The mediating role of financial management practices. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00564-2.

141. Holmes, R., et Jones, N. 2013. Gender and social protection in the developing world: Beyond mothers and safety nets. Bloomsbury Publishing, Londres.

142. Beegle, K., Coudouel, A., et Monsalve, E. 2018. Realizing the full potential of social safety nets in Africa. Africa Development Forum series. Banque Mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1164-7.

143. Davis, B., Handa, S., Hypher, N., Rossi, N. W., Winters, P., et Yablonski, J. 2016. From evidence to action: The story of cash transfers and impact evaluation in sub Saharan Africa. Oxford University Press.

144. Jones, N. 2021. Gender and social protection. In E. Schüring et M. Loewe (sous la direction de). Handbook on social protection systems. Elgar Handbooks in Social Policy and Welfare. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109119.

145. OIT. 2021. Rapport mondial sur la protection sociale 2020-2022: la protection sociale à la croisée des chemins – bâtir un avenir meilleur. Genève (Suisse).

146. FAO. 2022. Improving social protection for rural populations in Europe and Central Asia – Priorities for FAO. Budapest. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1925en.

147. FAO. 2018. Guide technique 1 de la FAO – Présentation des programmes de protection sociale sensibles au genre visant à lutter contre la pauvreté rurale: pourquoi sont-ils importants et en quoi consistent-ils? Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/CA2026FR/ca2026fr.pdf.

148. Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A., et Gilligan, D. O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1903. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133551.

149. Bonilla, J., Zarzur, R. C., Handa, S., Nowlin, C., Peterman, A., Ring, H., Seidenfeld, D., et Team, Z.C.G.P.E. 2017. Cash for women’s empowerment? A mixed-methods evaluation of the Government of Zambia’s child grant program. World Development, 95: 55-72.

150. De la O Campos, A. P. 2015. Empowering rural women through social protection. Rural Transformations – Technical Papers Series #2. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i4696e/i4696e.pdf.

151. FAO. 2018. Guide technique 2 de la FAO – Intégrer le genre dans la conception de programmes de transferts en espèces et de travaux publics. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ca2038fr/CA2038FR.pdf.

152. Akresh, R., De Walque, D., et Kazianga, H. 2016. Evidence from a randomized evaluation of the household welfare impacts of conditional and unconditional cash transfers given to mothers or fathers. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7730. Banque mondiale, Washington.

153. Banerjee, A., Hanna, R., Olken, B. A., et Sverdlin-Lisker, D. 2022. Social protection in the developing world. Working paper. https://tinyurl.com/2cz424hf.

154. Benhassine, N., Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., et Pouliquen, V. 2015. Turning a shove into a nudge? A” labeled cash transfer” for education. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(3): 86-125.

155. Haushofer, J., et Shapiro, J. 2016. The short-term impact of unconditional cash transfers to the poor: Experimental evidence from Kenya. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4): 1973-2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw025.

156. Handa, S., Peterman, A., Davis, B., et Stampini, M. 2009. Opening up Pandora’s box: The effect of gender targeting and conditionality on household spending behavior in Mexico’s Progresa program. World Development, 37(6): 1129-1142.

157. Camilletti, E. 2021. Social protection and its effects on gender equality: A literature review. Innocenti Working Papers. Centre de recherche Innocenti de l’UNICEF, Florence (Italie). https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/papers/10.18356/25206796-2020-16.

158. Yoong, J., Rabinovich, L., et Diepeveen, S. 2012. The impact of economic resource transfers to women versus men: A systematic review. Technical Report. Centre EPPI, Unité de recherches en sciences sociales, Institut de l’éducation, Université de Londres, Londres.

159. Jenson, J. 2009. Lost in translation: The social investment perspective and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 16(4): 446-483. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxp019.

160. Peterman, A., Kumar, N., Pereira, A., et Gilligan, D. O. 2019. Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01903. IFPRI, Washington.

161. Soares, F. V., et Silva, E. 2010. Conditional cash transfer programmes and gender vulnerabilities in Latin America: Case studies from Brazil, Chile and Colombia. Institut de développement outre-mer, Londres.

162. Klugman, J., Kellison, E., et Ortiz, E. 2021. Mobile phone technologies as an opportunity for women’s financial inclusion: What does the evidence say? In E. Lechman (sous la direction de). Technology and women’s empowerment. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

163. Andrews, C., de Montesquiou, A., Sánchez, I. A., Dutta, P. V., Samaranayake, S., Heisey, J., Clay, T., et Chaudhary, S. 2021. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The potential to scale. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34917.

164. Carter, B., Roelen, K., Enfield, S., et Avis, W. 2019. Social protection topic guide, revised edition. K4D Emerging Issues Report. Institut sur les études du développement, Brighton (Royaume-Uni).

165. Chang, W., Diaz-Martin, L., Gopalan, A., Guarnieri, E., Jayachandran, S., et Walsh, C. 2020. What works to enhance women’s agency: Cross-cutting lessons from experimental and quasi-experimental studies. J-PAL Working Paper.

166. Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B., Karlan, D., Kazianga, H., Parienté, W., Premand, P. et al. 2022. Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature, 605: 291-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04647-8.

167. Karimli, L., Bose, B., et Kagotho, N. 2020. Integrated graduation program and its effect on women and household economic well-being: Findings from a randomised controlled trial in Burkina Faso. The Journal of Development Studies, 56(7): 1277-1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1677887.

168. Bedoya, G., Coville, A., Haushofer, J., Isaqzadeh, M., et Shapiro, J. P. 2019. No household left behind: Afghanistan targeting the ultra poor impact evaluation. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 8877. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://tinyurl.com/2xzglljn.

Chapitre 4

1. McDougall, C., Badstue, L., Mulema, A., Fischer, G., Najjar, D., Pyburn, R., Elias, M., Joshi, D., et Vos, A. 2021. Toward structural change: Gender transformative approaches. In R. Pyburn et A. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 365-401. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293915_10.

2. Kabeer, N. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3): 435-464.

3. Quisumbing, A., Cole, S., Elias, M., Faas, S., Galiè, A., Malapit, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Myers, E., Seymour, G., et Twyman, J. 2022. Measuring women’s empowerment in agriculture: Innovations and evidence. Background paper for the Report on the Status of Rural Women in Agri-Food Systems: 10 Years after the SOFA 2010-11 of FAO. Plateforme GENDER du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya).

4. FAO. 2011. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2010-11. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i2050f/i2050f.pdf.

5. Elias, M., Cole, S., Quisumbing, A., Paez Valencia, A. M., Meinzen-Dick, R., et Twyman, J. 2021. Assessing women’s empowerment in agricultural research. In R. Pyburn et A. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 329-364. IFPRI, Washington.

6. Doss, C. 2013. Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 28(1): 52-78.

7. Peterman, A., Schwab, B., Roy, S., Hidrobo, M., et Gilligan, D. O. 2021. Measuring women’s decisionmaking: Indicator choice and survey design experiments from cash and food transfer evaluations in Ecuador, Uganda and Yemen. World Development, 141: 105387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105387.

8. Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Seymour, G., et Vaz, A. 2013. The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. World Development, 52: 71-91.

9. Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Malapit, H., Seymour, G., Heckert, J., Doss, C., Johnson, N. et al. 2022. Can agricultural development projects empower women? A synthesis of mixed methods evaluations using pro-WEAI in the gender, agriculture, and assets project (phase 2) portfolio. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2137. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136405.

10. Quisumbing, A., Gerli, B., Faas, S., Heckert, J., Malapit, H. J., McCarron, C., Meinzen-Dick, R. S., et Paz, F., 2022. Does the UN Joint Program for Rural Women’s Economic Empowerment (JP RWEE) deliver on its empowerment objectives ? IFPRI Discussion Paper 2131. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136302.

11. Baltenweck, I., Achandi, E., Bullock, R., Campbell, Z., Crane, T., Eldermire, E., Gichuki, L. et al. 2021. What can we learn from the literature about livestock interventions and women’s empowerment? ILRI Research Brief 105. ILRI, Nairobi. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/117227.

12. Galiè, A., et Kantor, P. 2016. From gender analysis to transforming gender norms: Using empowerment pathways to enhance gender equity and food security in Tanzania. In J. Njuki, J. Parkins et A. Kaler (sous la direction de). Transforming gender and food security in the global south, p. 213-240. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

13. Jumba, H., Kiara, H., Owuor, G., et Teufel, N. 2020. Are there gender differences in access to and demand for East Coast fever vaccine? Empirical evidence from rural smallholder dairy farmers in Kenya. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 121(2): 219-231. https://doi.org/10.17170/KOBRA-202010191970.

14. Myers, E., Heckert, J., Faas, S., Quisumbing, A., Malapit, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., et Raghunathan, K. 2022. Is women’s empowerment bearing fruit? Mapping Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) results to the Gender and Food Systems Framework. Presented at the CGIAR GENDER Science Exchange, Nairobi, 12-14 October 2022. IFPRI, Washington.

15. Malapit, H., et Quisumbing, A. 2015. What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy, 52: 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.02.003.

16. La seule exception concerne les filles âgées de 6 à 23 mois au Ghana: l’amélioration du score d’autonomisation et des indicateurs concernant le nombre de décisions relatives à la production agricole et la parité femmes-hommes dans les ménages est associée à une alimentation moins diversifiée.

17. Malapit, H., Kadiyala, S., Quisumbing, A., Cunningham, K., et Tyagi, P. 2015. Women’s empowerment mitigates the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(8): 1097-1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1018904.

18. Sraboni, E., et Quisumbing, A. 2018. Women’s empowerment in agriculture and dietary quality across the life course: Evidence from Bangladesh. Food Policy, 81: 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.09.001.

19. Bien que les estimations des apports en micronutriments ou en calories soient disponibles dans l’étude de Sraboni et Quisumbing (2018), nous ne les incluons pas dans les tableaux figurant en annexe.

20. Quisumbing, A., Sproule, K., Martinez, E. M., et Malapit, H. 2021. Do tradeoffs among dimensions of women’s empowerment and nutrition outcomes exist? Evidence from six countries in Africa and Asia. Food Policy, 100: 102001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102001.

21. Quisumbing, A., Sproule, K., Martinez, E. M., et Malapit, H. 2021. Do tradeoffs among dimensions of women’s empowerment and nutrition outcomes exist? Evidence from six countries in Africa and Asia. Food Policy, 100: 102001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102001.

22. Il convient d’interpréter ces résultats avec prudence, car une augmentation de l’IMC ne va pas toujours de pair avec une amélioration de la nutrition.

23. Bonis-Profumo, G., Stacey, N., et Brimblecombe, J. 2021. Measuring women’s empowerment in agriculture, food production, and child and maternal dietary diversity in Timor-Leste. Food Policy, 102: 102102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102102.

24. Kassie, M., Fisher, M., Muricho, G., et Diiro, G. 2020. Women’s empowerment boosts the gains in dietary diversity from agricultural technology adoption in rural Kenya. Food Policy, 95: 101957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101957.

25. Onah, M. N., Horton, S., et Hoddinott, J. 2021. What empowerment indicators are important for food consumption for women? Evidence from 5 sub-Sahara African countries. PLOS ONE, 16(4): e0250014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250014.

26. Harris-Fry, H., Nur, H., Shankar, B., Zanello, G., Srinivasan, C., et Kadiyala, S. 2020. The impact of gender equity in agriculture on nutritional status, diets, and household food security: A mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 5(3): e002173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002173.

27. Sraboni, E., Malapit, H., Quisumbing, A., et Ahmed, A. U. 2014. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: What role for food security in Bangladesh? World Development, 61: 11-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.025.

28. Holland, C., et Rammohan, A. 2019. Rural women’s empowerment and children’s food and nutrition security in Bangladesh. World Development, 124: 104648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104648.

29. Murugani, V. G., et Thamaga-Chitja, J. M. 2019. How does women’s empowerment in agriculture affect household food security and dietary diversity? The case of rural irrigation schemes in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Agrekon, 58(3): 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2019.1610976.

30. Clement, F., Buisson, M.-C., Leder, S., Balasubramanya, S., Saikia, P., Bastakoti, R., Karki, E., et van Koppen, B. 2019. From women’s empowerment to food security: Revisiting global discourses through a cross-country analysis. Global Food Security, 23: 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.05.003.

31. Seymour, G., Masuda, Y. J., Williams, J., et Schneider, K. 2019. Household and child nutrition outcomes among the time and income poor in rural Bangladesh. Global Food Security, 20: 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.004.

32. Anik, A. R., et Rahman, S. 2021. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Level, inequality, progress, and impact on productivity and efficiency. The Journal of Development Studies, 57(6): 930-948. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1817393.

33. Diiro, G. M., Seymour, G., Kassie, M., Muricho, G., et Muriithi, B.W. 2018. Women’s empowerment in agriculture and agricultural productivity: Evidence from rural maize farmer households in western Kenya. PLOS ONE, 13(5): e0197995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197995.

34. Wouterse, F. 2019. The role of empowerment in agricultural production: Evidence from rural households in Niger. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(4): 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2017.1408797.

35. De Pinto, A., Seymour, G., Bryan, E., et Bhandari, P. 2020. Women’s empowerment and farmland allocations in Bangladesh: Evidence of a possible pathway to crop diversification. Climatic Change, 163(2): 1025-1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02925-w.

36. Seymour, G. 2017. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Implications for technical efficiency in rural Bangladesh. Agricultural Economics, 48(4): 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12352.

37. Hossain, M., Asadullah, M. N., et Kambhampati, U. 2019. Empowerment and life satisfaction: Evidence from Bangladesh. World Development, 122: 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.013.

38. Malapit, H., Sraboni, E., Quisumbing, A. R., et Ahmed, A. U. 2019. Intrahousehold empowerment gaps in agriculture and children’s well-being in Bangladesh. Development Policy Review, 37(2): 176-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12374.

39. Leight, J., Pedehombga, A., Ganaba, R., et Gelli, A. 2022. Women’s empowerment, maternal depression, and stress: Evidence from rural Burkina Faso. SSM – Mental Health, 2: 100160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2022.100160.

40. Scott, S., Arrieta, A., Kumar, N., Menon, P., et Quisumbing, A. 2020. Multidimensional predictors of common mental disorders among Indian mothers of 6- to 24-month-old children living in disadvantaged rural villages with women’s self-help groups: A cross-sectional analysis. PLOS ONE, 15(6), e0233418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233418.

41. Fielding, D., et Lepine, A. 2017. Women’s empowerment and wellbeing: Evidence from Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(6): 826-840. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1219345.

42. Pyburn, R., et van Eerdewijk, A. 2021. CGIAR research through an equality and empowerment lens. In R. Pyburn et A. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 1-75. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293915_01.

43. Doss, C., et Meinzen-Dick, R. 2020. Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy, 99: 105080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105080.

44. Lecoutere, E., Achandi, E. L., Ampaire, E., Fischer, G., Gumucio, T., Najjar, D., et Singaraju, N. 2022. Fostering an enabling environment for equality and empowerment in agri-food systems. Presented at the CGIAR GENDER Science Exchange, Nairobi, 12–14 October 2022. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/125615.

45. Farnworth, C. R., Badstue, L., Williams, G. J., Tegbaru, A., et Gaya, H. I. M. 2020. Unequal partners: Associations between power, agency and benefits among women and men maize farmers in Nigeria. Gender, Technology and Development, 24(3): 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1794607.

46. Leon-Himmelstine, C., Phiona, S., Löwe, A., Plank, G., et Vu, N. 2021. Young women in the agricultural sector in Uganda. Lessons from the Youth Forward Initiative. Report. Institut de développement outre-mer, Londres.

47. Petesch, P., et Badstue, L. 2020. Gender norms and poverty dynamics in 32 villages of South Asia. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 3(3): 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00047-5.

48. OCDE. 2019. SIGI 2019 Global Report: Transforming challenges into opportunities. Social Institutions and Gender Index. Éditions OCDE, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/bc56d212-en.

49. Girls Not Brides et Centre international de recherche sur les femmes. 2016. Taking action to address child marriage: the role of different sectors - Food Security and Nutrition. Girls Not Brides Briefing Series, Brief #6.

50. Bryant, L., et Garnham, B. 2015. The fallen hero: Masculinity, shame and farmer suicide in Australia. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(1): 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.855628.

51. Khan, A. R., Ratele, K., Helman, R., Dlamini, S., et Makama, R. 2022. Masculinity and suicide in Bangladesh. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 86(1): 218-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222820966239.

52. Ragonese, C., Shand, T., et Barker, G. 2019. Masculine norms and men’s health: Making the connections. Promundo-US, Washington.

53. OMS. 2016. Changement climatique, genre et santé. Genève (Suisse). https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/906892/retrieve.

54. Bergman Lodin, J., Tegbaru, A., Bullock, R., Degrande, A., Nkengla, L. W., et Gaya, H. I. 2019. Gendered mobilities and immobilities: Women’s and men’s capacities for agricultural innovation in Kenya and Nigeria. Gender, Place & Culture, 26(12): 1759-1783. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1618794.

55. Locke, C., Muljono, P., McDougall, C., et Morgan, M. 2017. Innovation and gendered negotiations: Insights from six small-scale fishing communities. Fish and Fisheries, 18(5): 943-957.

56. Boudet, A. M. M., Petesch, P., et Turk, C. 2013. On norms and agency: Conversations about gender equality with women and men in 20 countries. Directions in Development: Human Development. Banque mondiale, Washington. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-9862-3.

57. Badstue, L., Elias, M., Kommerell, V., Petesch, P., Prain, G., Pyburn, R., et Umantseva, A. 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.

58. Fischer, G., Wittich, S., Malima, G., Sikumba, G., Lukuyu, B., Ngunga, D., et Rugalabam, J. 2018. Gender and mechanization: Exploring the sustainability of mechanized forage chopping in Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies, 64: 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.012.

59. Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin, B. Puranen, et al. (sous la direction de). 2018. World Values Survey: Round Six - Country-Pooled Datafile. Institut JD Systems et secrétariat de l’Association World Values Survey, Madrid (Espagne) et Vienne (Autriche). doi.org/10.14281/18241.8.

60. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin, B. Puranen, et al. (sous la direction de). 2020. World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile. Institut JD Systems et secrétariat de l’Association World Values Survey, Madrid (Espagne) et Vienne (Autriche). doi.org/10.14281/18241.1.

61. Lecoutere, E., Achandi, E. L., Ampaire, E., Fischer, G., Gumucio, T., Najjar, D., et Singaraju, N. 2022. Fostering an enabling environment for equality and empowerment in agri-food systems. Background paper for the Report on the Status of Rural Women in Agri-Food Systems: 10 Years after the SOFA 2010-11 of FAO. Plateforme GENDER du CGIAR, Nairobi (Kenya).

62. Données Afrobarometer. 2016-2017. [Plusieurs pays; 2016-2017.] http://www.afrobarometer.org.

63. Mkandawire, E., Mentz-Coetzee, M., Mangheni, M. N., et Barusi, E. 2021. Enhancing the Glopan food systems framework by integrating gender: Relevance for women in African agriculture. Sustainability, 13(15): 8564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158564.

64. Wang, J., Ding, X., Gao, H., et Fan, S. 2022. Reshaping food policy and governance to incentivize and empower disadvantaged groups for improving nutrition. Nutrients, 14(3): 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030648.

65. Ampaire, E., Acosta, M., Kigonya, R., Kyomugisha, S., Muchunguzi, P., et Jassogne, L. T. 2016. Gender responsive policy formulation and budgeting in Tanzania: Do plans and budgets match? CCAFS Info Note. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Copenhague. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/78606.

66. Aura, R., Nyasimi, M., Cramer, L., et Thornton, P.K. 2017. Gender review of climate change legislative and policy frameworks and strategies in East Africa. CCAFS Working Paper No. 209. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningen (Pays-Bas).

67. Gumucio, T., et Tafur Rueda, M. 2015. Influencing gender-inclusive climate change policies in Latin America. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(2): 41-60. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.246049.

68. Banque mondiale. 2022. Les femmes, l’entreprise et le droit – données longitudinales [2012-2022]. In Banque mondiale. Washington. https://wbl.banquemondiale.org/fr/wbl.

69. L’indice couvre la mobilité, le travail, la rémunération, le mariage, la parentalité, l’entrepreneuriat, les actifs et la retraite.

70. Outre des lois interdisant la discrimination liée au genre, des mesures temporaires spéciales ont été mises en place pour accorder la priorité aux femmes jusqu’à l’instauration d’une égalité de fait entre les femmes et les hommes71. Même si leurs effets sur l’égalité des genres n’ont pas été évalués de manière systématique, ces mesures constituent un outil prometteur pour remédier à la discrimination et à l’exclusion que subissent les femmes depuis longtemps. Des bases de données telles que GenderLex, un sous-ensemble de la base de données juridiques FAOLEX de la FAO (https://www.fao.org/faolex/fr/), pourront faciliter la réalisation d’évaluations systématiques. GenderLex rassemble près de 500 mesures qui sont issues de 1 500 documents juridiques établissant des mesures temporaires spéciales dans les domaines de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la gestion des ressources naturelles; cette base couvre l’ensemble des pays et régions du monde.

71. Kenney, N. 2022. Achieving de facto gender equality in land, forest and fisheries tenure. FAO Legal Papers No. 110. FAO, Rome.

72. FAO. 2016. The Gender in Agricultural Policies Analysis Tool (GAPo). Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i6274en/i6274en.pdf.

73. UICN. 2021. Gender and national climate planning: Gender integration in the revised Nationally Determined Contributions. Gland (Suisse). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49860.

74. Ampaire, E., Acosta, M., Huyer, S., Kigonya, R., Muchunguzi, P., Muna, R., et Jassogne, L. 2020. Gender in climate change, agriculture, and natural resource policies: Insights from East Africa. Climatic Change, 158: 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02447-0.

75. Howland, F., Acosta, M., Muriel, J., et Le Coq, J.-F. 2021. Examining the barriers to gender integration in agriculture, climate change, food security, and nutrition policies: Guatemalan and Honduran perspectives. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.664253.

76. Paudyal, B. R., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Sherpa, L., Kadariya, I., et Aggarwal, P. 2019. Gender integration in climate change and agricultural policies: The case of Nepal. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00066.

77. Alston, M. 2021. Gender and disasters. In T. Väyrynen, S. Parashar, É. Féron, et C. C. Confortini (sous la direction de). Routledge handbook of feminist peace research, p. 343-353. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

78. Huyer, S., Acosta, M., Gumucio, T., et Ilham, J.I.J. 2020. Can we turn the tide? Confronting gender inequality in climate policy. Gender & Development, 28(3): 571-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1836817.

79. Huyer, S., Gumucio, T., Tavenner, K., Acosta, M., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Mungai, C. et al. 2021. From vulnerability to agency in climate adaptation and mitigation. In R. Pyburn et A.H.J.M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 261-294. IFPRI, Washington.

80. Huyer, S., et Partey, S. 2020. Weathering the storm or storming the norms? Moving gender equality forward in climate-resilient agriculture: Introduction to the Special Issue on Gender Equality in Climate-Smart Agriculture: Approaches and Opportunities. Climatic Change, 158(1): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02612-5.

81. Acosta, M., van Bommel, S., van Wessel, M., Ampaire, E., Jassogne, L., et Feindt, P. H. 2019. Discursive translations of gender mainstreaming norms: The case of agricultural and climate change policies in Uganda. Women’s Studies International Forum, 74: 9-19.

82. Dlamini, C., et Samboko, p. 2016. Towards gender mainstreaming in agricuture, natural resources management and climate change programmes in Zambia. Working Paper No. 108. Institut Indaba de recherche sur les politiques agricoles, Lusaka. http://www.iapri.org.zm/images/WorkingPapers/wp108_rev.pdf.

83. Bryan, E., Bernier, Q., Espinal, M., et Ringler, C. 2018. Making climate change adaptation programmes in sub-Saharan Africa more gender responsive: Insights from implementing organizations on the barriers and opportunities. Climate and Development, 10(5): 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301870.

84. Ragasa, C., Sun, Y., Bryan, E., Abate, C., Atlaw, A., et Keita, M.N. 2013. Organizational and institutional issues in climate change adaptation and risk management: Insights from practitioners’ survey in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Mali. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1279. IFPRI, Washington. https://ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll2/id/127758.

85. Acosta, M., Wessel, M. van, Bommel, S. van, Ampaire, E., Jassogne, L., et Feindt, P.H. 2020. The power of narratives: Explaining inaction on gender mainstreaming in Uganda’s climate change policy. Development Policy Review, 38(5): 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12458.

86. Mersha, A. A., et van Laerhoven, F. 2019. Gender and climate policy: A discursive institutional analysis of Ethiopia’s climate resilient strategy. Regional Environmental Change, 19(2): 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1413-8.

87. Mavisakalyan, A., et Tarverdi, Y. 2019. Gender and climate change: Do female parliamentarians make difference? European Journal of Political Economy, 56: 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.08.001.

88. EIGE (Institut européen pour l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes). 2021. Decision-making in environment and climate change: Women woefully under-represented in the EU Member States. In Gender Statistics Database. EIGE, Vilnius. https://tinyurl.com/22wdmugf (consulté le 7 février 2023).

89. Pearse, R. 2017. Gender and climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 8(2): e451. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.451.

90. Picard, M. 2021. Empowering women in climate, environment and disaster risk governance: From national policy to local action. EGM/ENV/BP.1. Background paper prepared for the UN Women Expert Group Meeting “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes,” 11 – 14 October 2021. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://tinyurl.com/24gkse79.

91. OFED (Organisation des femmes pour l’environnement et le développement). 2022. Women’s participation in the UNFCCC: 2022 report. Brooklyn, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://tinyurl.com/2799vgn3.

92. Resurrección, B.P. 2013. Persistent women and environment linkages in climate change and sustainable development agendas. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40: 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.03.011.

Chapitre 5

1. Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J., et Basset, L. 2011. Gender and the global food-price crisis. Development in Practice, 21(4–5): 488-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.561283.

2. FAO. 2021. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2021. Rendre les systèmes agroalimentaires plus résilients face aux chocs et aux situations de stress. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476fr.

3. Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni) et New York (États-Unis). doi:10.1017/9781009325844.

4. Sultana, F. 2021. Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of injustices: A feminist reading of overlapping crises. Social & Cultural Geography, 22(4): 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1910994.

5. Koo, J., Azzarri, C., Mishra, A., Lecoutere, E., Puskur, R., Chanana, N., Singaraju, N., Nico, G., et Khatri-Chhetri, A. 2022. Effectively targeting climate investments: A methodology for mapping climate–agriculture–gender inequality hotspots. Working Paper. Plateforme GENDER du CGIAR. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/119602.

6. Hallegatte, S., Fay, M., et Barbier. E. M. 2018. Poverty and climate change: Introduction. Environment and Development Economics, 23(3): 217-233.

7. Dennig F., Budolfson, M. B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A., et Socolow, R. H. 2015. Inequality, climate impacts on the future poor, and carbon prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 15827-15832.

8. Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A., Eriksen, S. H., Ma, S., Perch, L. N., et Zakieldeen, S. A. 2014. Livelihoods and poverty. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee et al. (sous la direction de). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 793-832. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni).

9. Koubi, V. 2019. Climate change and conflict. Annual Review of Political Science, 22: 343-360.

10. Sharifi, A., Simangan, D., Lee, C. Y., Reyes, S. R., Katramiz, T., Josol, J. C., Dos Muchangos, L. et al. 2021. Climate-induced stressors to peace: A review of recent literature. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (7): 073006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfc08.

11. Thomas, D., Beegle, K., et Frankenberg, E. 2000. Labor market transitions of men and women during an economic crisis: Evidence from Indonesia. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/DRU2344.html.

12. L’analyse porte sur les données relatives à l’Argentine, à l’Indonésie, à la Malaisie, au Mexique, à la République de Corée, à la Thaïlande et à la Türkiye. L’emploi agricole a progressé dans tous les pays à l’exception de la Malaisie et du Mexique.

13. Sabarwal, S., Sinha, N., et Buvinic, M. 2013. How do women weather economic shocks? A review of the evidence. Working Paper. Policy Research Working Papers. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5496.

14. Fallon, P. R., et Lucas, R. E. 2002. The impact of financial crises on labor markets, household incomes, and poverty: A review of evidence. Banque mondiale, Washington.

15. Les estimations reposent sur les données relatives à l’emploi des femmes et des hommes dans les systèmes agroalimentaires qui ont été présentées au chapitre 2.

16. McDermott, J., et Swinnen, J. 2022. COVID-19 and global food security: Two years later. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896294226.

17. Ceballos, F., Kannan, S., et Kramer, B. 2020. Impacts of a national lockdown on smallholder farmers’ income and food security: Empirical evidence from two states in India. World Development, 136: 105069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105069.

18. Les données pour 2021 n’étant pas disponibles pour l’ensemble des pays au moment de la rédaction du rapport, la période couverte s’arrête à 2020.

19. Flor, L. S., Friedman, J., Spencer, C. N., Cagney, J., Arrieta, A., Herbert, M. E., Stein, C. et al. 2022. Quantifying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality on health, social, and economic indicators: A comprehensive review of data from March, 2020, to September, 2021. The Lancet, 399 (10344): 2381-2397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00008-3.

20. OIT. 2021. Bâtir un avenir plus équitable: les droits des femmes au travail et en milieu de travail au cœur de la reprise post-COVID. Note de synthèse de l’OIT. Genève (Suisse).

21. Bundervoet, T., Dávalos, M. E., et Garcia, N. 2022. The short-term impacts of COVID-19 on households in developing countries: An overview based on a harmonized dataset of high-frequency surveys. World Development, 153: 105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105844.

22. Bargain, O., et Aminjonov, U. 2021. Poverty and COVID-19 in Africa and Latin America. World Development, 142: 105422. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105422.

23. Han, J., Meyer, B. D., et Sullivan, J. X. 2020. Income and poverty in the COVID-19 pandemic. Working Paper No. 27729. Bureau national de recherche économique, Cambridge (États-Unis d’Amérique). http://www.nber.org/papers/w27729.

24. Headey, D. D., Oo, T. Z., Mahrt, K., Diao, X., Goudet, S., et Lambrecht, I. 2020. Poverty, food insecurity, and social protection during COVID-19 in Myanmar: Combined evidence from a household telephone survey and micro-simulations. Strategy Support Program Policy Note 35. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134144.

25. ONU-Femmes. 2021. Mesurer la pandémie de l’ombre: la violence à l’égard des femmes pendant la pandémie de covid-19. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

26. FAO. 2023. Les conséquences de la covid-19 sur le travail des enfants dans les systèmes agroalimentaires. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2136fr.

27. Dessy, S., Gninafon, H., Tiberti, L., et Tiberti, M. 2021. COVID-19 and children’s school resilience: Evidence from Nigeria. GLO Discussion Paper No. 952. Global Labor Organization, Essen (Allemagne). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/243100.

28. Groupe d’experts de haut niveau sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition. 2020. Impacts de la covid-19 sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition: élaborer des mesures efficaces pour lutter contre la pandémie de faim et de malnutrition. Document de synthèse du Groupe d’experts de haut niveau. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ng808fr/ng808fr.pdf.

29. Doss, C., Njuki, J., et Mika, H. 2020. The potential intersections of Covid-19, gender and food security in Africa. Agri-Gender – Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 5(1): 41-48. https://doi.org/10.19268/JGAFS.512020.4.

30. Kumar, N., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2013. Gendered impacts of the 2007–2008 food price crisis: Evidence using panel data from rural Ethiopia. Food Policy, 38: 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.002.

31. CARE. 2020. Gender implications of COVID-19 outbreaks in development and humanitarian settings. CARE International, Genève (Suisse).

32. Comité permanent interorganisations. 2020. Orientation provisoire: Alerte sur le genre pour la pandémie de covid-19. Genève (Suisse).

33. Andrews, S. K., Gabat, J., Jolink, G., et Klugman, J. 2021. Responding to rising intimate partner violence amid COVID-19—A rapid global review. DLA Piper/New Perimeter. Institut de Georgetown pour les femmes, la paix et la sécurité, Washington.

34. Peterman, A., Potts, A., O’Donnell, M., Thompson, K., Shah, N., Oertelt-Prigione, S., et Van Gelder, N. 2020. Pandemics and violence against women and children. Working Paper. Vol. 528. Centre pour le développement mondial, Washington.

35. FAO. 2020. Effets sexospécifiques de la covid-19 et mesures de politique générale équitables en matière d’agriculture, de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9198fr.

36. Gavrilovic, M., Rubio, M., Bastagli, F., Hinton, R., Staab, S., Goulder, R. G., Bilo, C. et al. 2022. Gender-responsive social protection post–COVID-19. Science, 375(6585): 1111-1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5922.

37. Campbell, B. 2022. Climate change impacts and adaptation options in the agrifood system: A summary of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sixth Assesment Report. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0425en.

38. Bryan, E., Alvi, M., Huyer, S., et Ringler, C. 2023. Addressing gender inequalities and strengthening women’s agency for climate-resilient and sustainable food systems. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi.

39. Huyer, S., Gumucio, T., Tavenner, K., Acosta, M., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Mungai, C. et al. 2021. From vulnerability to agency in climate adaptation and mitigation. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 261-294. IFPRI, Washington.

40. Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C., Asher, K., Brockhaus, M., et Basnett Sijapati, B. 2016. Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio, 45(S3): 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2.

41. Andrijevic, M., Crespo Cuaresma, J., Lissner, T., Thomas, A., et Schleussner, C.-F. 2020. Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19856-w.

42. Alston, M. 2021. Gender and disasters. In T. Väyrynen, S. Parashar, É. Féron et C. C. Confortini (sous la direction de). Routledge handbook of feminist peace research, p. 343-353. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

43. Chanana-Nag, N., et Aggarwal, P. K. 2020. Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: Hotspots for development. Climatic Change, 158(1): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2233-z.

44. Magassa, M., Partey, S., Houessionon, P., Dembele, S., Ouédraogo, M., et Zougmoré, R. B. 2020. Towards gender-informed adaptation planning in the Sudanian zone of Mali: Analysis of climate change vulnerability CCAFS Working Paper No. 310. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/108325.

45. Twyman, J., Acosta, M., et Irigoyen, M. 2022. Gender relations and inequalities in the Amazon: The potential of geospatial systems to address gender inequalities. A study by the SERVIR-Amazonia Program. Centre SERVIR-Amazonia, Cali (Colombie). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/121882.

46. Rao, N., Lawson, E. T., Raditloaneng, W. N., Solomon, D., et Angula, M. N. 2019. Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change: Insights from the semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia. Climate and Development, 11(1): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1372266.

47. Nkengla-Asi, L., Babu, S. C., Kirscht, H., Apfelbacher, S., Hanna, R., et Tegbaru, A. 2017. Gender, climate change, and resilient food systems lessons from strategic adaptation by smallholder farmers in Cameroon. IFPRI Discussion Papers 1658. IFPRI, Washington.

48. Grasham, C. F., Korzenevica, M., et Charles, K. J. 2019. On considering climate resilience in urban water security: A review of the vulnerability of the urban poor in sub-Saharan Africa. WIREs Water, 6(3): e1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1344.

49. Doocy, S., Daniels, A., Murray, S., et Kirsch, T. D. 2013. The human impact of floods: A historical review of events 1980-2009 and systematic literature review. PLoS Currents, 5: ecurrents.dis.f4deb457904936b07c09daa98ee8171a. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644291/.

50. Erman, A., De Vries Robbe, S. A., Thies, S. F., Kabir, K., et Maruo, M. 2021. Gender dimensions of disaster risk and resilience: Existing evidence. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35202.

51. Neumayer, E., et Plümper, T. 2007. The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3): 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x.

52. Picard, M. 2021. Empowering women in climate, environment and disaster risk governance: From national policy to local action. Background paper prepared for the Expert Group Meeting “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes”, 11–14 October 2021. EGM/ENV/BP.1. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

53. Hunter, L. M., Castro, J., Kleiber, D., et Hutchens, K. 2016. Swimming and gendered vulnerabilities: Evidence from the northern and central Philippines. Society & Natural Resources, 29(3): 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1046097.

54. MacDonald, R. 2005. How women were affected by the tsunami: A perspective from Oxfam. PLoS Medicine, 2(6): e178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020178.

55. Ikeda, K. 1995. Gender differences in human loss and vulnerability in natural disasters: A case study from Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2(2):171-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152159500200202.

56. Sultana, F. 2014. Gendering climate change: Geographical insights. The Professional Geographer, 66(3): 372-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.821730.

57. Folkerts, M. A., Bröde, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Martinius, M. L., Gerrett, N., Harmsen, C. N., et Daanen, H. A. M. 2022. Sex differences in temperature-related all-cause mortality in the Netherlands. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 95(1): 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01721-y.

58. Ellena, M., Ballester, J., Mercogliano, P., Ferracin, E., Barbato, G., Costa, G., et Ingole, V. 2020. Social inequalities in heat-attributable mortality in the city of Turin, northwest of Italy: A time series analysis from 1982 to 2018. Environmental Health, 19(1): 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00667-x.

59. Van Steen, Y., Ntarladima, A.-M., Grobbee, R., Karssenberg, D., et Vaartjes, I. 2019. Sex differences in mortality after heat waves: Are elderly women at higher risk? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(1): 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1360-1.

60. CDC (Centres pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies). 2020. QuickStats: Number of natural heat-related deaths, by sex and age group—National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2018. In Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Centre pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies, Atlanta (États-Unis d’Amérique). Consulté le 16 février 2023.

61. Van Daalen, K. R., Kallesøe, S. S., Davey, F., Dada, S., Jung, L., Singh, L., Issa, R. et al. 2022. Extreme events and gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(6): e504–e523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00088-2.

62. Thurston, A. M., Stöckl, H., et Ranganathan, M. 2021. Natural hazards, disasters and violence against women and girls: A global mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 6(4), e004377. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004377.

63. Sanz-Barbero, B., Linares, C., Vives-Cases, C., González, J. L., López-Ossorio, J. J., et Díaz, J. 2018. Heat wave and the risk of intimate partner violence. Science of The Total Environment, 644: 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.368.

64. Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (sous la direction de). 2014. Annex II: Glossary. In Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Part B: Regional aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, p. 1757-1776. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.011.

65. Kristjanson, P., Bryan, E., Bernier, Q., Twyman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Kieran, C., Ringler, C., Jost, C., et Doss, C. 2017. Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(5): 482500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411.

66. Bryan, E., Kato, E., et Bernier, Q. 2021. Gender differences in awareness and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in Bangladesh. In J. Eastin et K. Dupuy (sous la direction de). Gender, climate change and livelihoods: Vulnerabilities and adaptations, p. 123-142. CABI, Wallingford (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789247053.0010.

67. Ngigi, M. W., Mueller, U., et Birner, R. 2017. Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: An intra-household analysis from rural Kenya. Ecological Economics, 138: 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.019.

68. Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal, P. et al. 2016. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development, 8(2): 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978.

69. Murray, U., Gebremedhin, Z., Brychkova, G., et Spillane, C. 2016. Smallholder farmers and climate smart agriculture: Technology and labor-productivity constraints amongst women smallholders in Malawi. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(2): 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852416640639.

70. Perez, C., Jones, E., Kristjanson, P., Cramer, L., Thornton, P. K., Förch, W., et Barahona, C. 2015. How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environmental Change, 34: 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.003.

71. Murage, A. W., Pittchar, J. O., Midega, C. A. O., Onyango, C. O., et Khan, Z. R. 2015. Gender specific perceptions and adoption of the climate-smart push–pull technology in eastern Africa. Crop Protection, 76: 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.06.014.

72. Mutenje, M. J., Farnworth, C. R., Stirling, C., Thierfelder, C., Mupangwa, W., et Nyagumbo, I. 2019. A cost-benefit analysis of climate-smart agriculture options in southern Africa: Balancing gender and technology. Ecological Economics, 163: 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013.

73. Grassi, F., Landberg, J., et Huyer, S. 2015. Running out of time: The reduction of women’s work burden in agricultural production. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i4741e/i4741e.pdf.

74. FAO. 2022. Site internet du Guide de référence de l’agriculture intelligente face au climat. In Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture. Rome. https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/fr/ (consulté le 14 mars 2023).

75. Sumner, D., Christie, M. E., et Boulakia, S. 2017. Conservation agriculture and gendered livelihoods in Northwestern Cambodia: Decision-making, space and access. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2): 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9718-z.

76. Kiptot, E., et Franzel, S. 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.

77. Farnworth, C. R., Stirling, C., Sapkota, T. B., Jat, M. L., Misiko, M., et Attwood, S. 2017. Gender and inorganic nitrogen: What are the implications of moving towards a more balanced use of nitrogen fertilizer in the tropics? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(2): 136-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343.

78. Otieno, G., Zebrowski, W. M., Recha, J., et Reynolds, T. W. 2021. Gender and social seed networks for climate change adaptation: Evidence from bean, finger millet, and sorghum seed systems in East Africa. Sustainability, 13(4): Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042074.

79. Hosken, L. 2017. The critical role that African rural women play as custodians of seed diversity and wild relatives in the context of climate change. Biodiversity, 18(2–3): 98-101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14888386.2017.1351893.

80. Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Huyer, S., et van Huysen, T. 2019. Gender-responsive rural climate services: A review of the literature. Climate and Development, 12(3): 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1613216.

81. FIDA. 2021. Transforming food systems for rural prosperity: Rural Development Report 2021. Rome. https://tinyurl.com/3dcb6fsd.

82. Akter, S., Krupnik, T. J., Rossi, F., et Khanam, F. 2016. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38: 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.010.

83. Twyman, J., Green, M., Bernier, Q., Kristjanson, P., Russo, S., Tall, A., Ampaire, E. et al. 2014. Adaptation actions in Africa: Evidence that gender matters. CCAFS Working Paper No. 83. Programme sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Copenhague.

84. Duffy, C., Toth, G., Cullinan, J., Murray, U., et Spillane, C. 2021. Climate smart agriculture extension: Gender disparities in agroforestry knowledge acquisition. Climate and Development, 13(1): 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1715912.

85. Partey, S. T., Dakorah, A. D., Zougmoré, R. B., Ouédraogo, M., Nyasimi, M., Nikoi, G. K., et Huyer, S. 2020. Gender and climate risk management: Evidence of climate information use in Ghana. Climatic Change, 158(1): 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2239-6.

86. Acosta, M., Bonilla-Findji, O., Eitzinger, A., Arora, D., Martinez-Baron, D., Bejarano, G., et Suchini, J. G. 2019. Examining gender differences in the access to and implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices in Central America. CCAFS Info Note. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/103471.

87. Timu, A., et Kramer, B. 2021. Gender-inclusive, -responsive and -transformative agricultural insurance: A literature review. CCAFS Working Paper No. 417. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117797.

88. Aheeyar, M., de Silva, S., Senaratna-Sellamuttu, S., et Arulingam, I. 2019. Unpacking barriers to socially inclusive weather index insurance: Towards a framework for inclusion. Water, 11(11): 2235. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112235.

89. Birir, A. K. 2020. Effect of social capital on adoption of climate-smart agriculture in Nyando Basin, Kenya. CCAFS Info Note. Programme sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas).

90. Muttarak, R., et Lutz, W. 2014. Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and hence unavoidable climate change? Ecology and Society, 19(1): 42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06476-190142.

91. Kwauk, C., et Braga, A. 2017. Three platforms for girls’ education in climate strategies. Brooke Shearer Series, No. 6. Brookings, Washington.

92. Sims, K. 2021. Education, girls’ education and climate change. K4D Emerging Issues Report 29. Institut sur les études du développement, Londres. https://doi.org/10.19088/K4D.2021.044.

93. Staffieri, I., Sitko, N., et Maluccio, J. 2022. Sustaining school enrolment when rains fail: A gender disaggregated analysis of the impacts of school feeding programmes on school enrolment in the context of dry shocks in Malawi. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9915en.

94. Bryan, E., Theis, S., Choufani, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Ringler, C., et De Pinto, A. 2017. Gender-sensitive, climate-smart agriculture for improved nutrition in Africa south of the Sahara. In A. De Pinto et J. M. Ulimwengu (sous la direction de). A thriving agricultural sector in a changing climate: Meeting Malabo Declaration goals through climate-smart agriculture, p. 114-135. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292949_09.

95. Ahmad, D., Afzal, M., et Rauf, A. 2021. Flood hazards adaptation strategies: A gender-based disaggregated analysis of farm-dependent Bait community in Punjab, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(1): 865-886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00612-5.

96. Anugwa, I. Q., Agwu, A. E., Suvedi, M., et Babu, S. 2020. Gender-specific livelihood strategies for coping with climate change-induced food insecurity in southeast Nigeria. Food Security, 12(5): 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01042-x.

97. Bastakoti, G. B., et Doneys, P. 2020. Gendered perceptions of climate variability, food insecurity, and adaptation practices in Nepal. Climate and Development, 12(6): 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1660604.

98. Mersha, A. A., et van Laerhoven, F. 2016. A gender approach to understanding the differentiated impact of barriers to adaptation: Responses to climate change in rural Ethiopia. Regional Environmental Change, 16(6): 1701-1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0921-z.

99. Algur, K. D., Patel, S. K., et Chauhan, S. 2021. The impact of drought on the health and livelihoods of women and children in India: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 122: 105909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105909.

100. Quisumbing, A. R., Kumar, N., et Behrman, J. A. 2018. Do shocks affect men’s and women’s assets differently? Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda. Development Policy Review, 36(1): 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12235.

101. Lei, L., et Desai, S. 2021. Male out-migration and the health of left-behind wives in India: The roles of remittances, household responsibilities, and autonomy. Social Science & Medicine, 280: 113982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113982.

102. Agadjanian, V., Hayford, S. R., et Jansen, N. A. 2021. Men’s migration and women’s mortality in rural Mozambique. Social Science & Medicine, 270: 113519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113519.

103. Lee, Y., Haile, B., Seymour, G., et Azzarri, C. 2021. The heat never bothered me anyway: Gender-specific response of agricultural labor to climatic shocks in Tanzania. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(2): 732-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13153.

104. Nico, G., et Azzarri, C. 2022. Weather variability and extreme shocks in Africa: Are female or male farmers more affected? IFPRI Discussion Paper 2115. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.135870.

105. Agamile, P., et Lawson, D. 2021. Rainfall shocks and children’s school attendance: Evidence from Uganda. Oxford Development Studies, 49(3): 291-309.

106. Björkman-Nyqvist, M. 2013. Income shocks and gender gaps in education: Evidence from Uganda. Journal of Development Economics, 105: 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.07.013.

107. UICN. 2021. Gender and national climate planning: Gender integration in the revised Nationally Determined Contributions. Gland (Suisse). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49860.

108. Carrico, A. R., Donato, K. M., Best, K. B., et Gilligan, J. 2020. Extreme weather and marriage among girls and women in Bangladesh. Global Environmental Change, 65: 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102160.

109. FAO, FIDA, OMS, PAM et UNICEF. 2017. L’État de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le monde 2017. Renforcer la résilience pour favoriser la paix et la sécurité alimentaire. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I7695f/I7695f.pdf.

110. FAO. 2019. Aperçu régional de l’état de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. Transformation rurale – Clé du développement durable au Proche-Orient et en Afrique du Nord. Le Caire. https://www.fao.org/3/ca3817fr/ca3817fr.pdf.

111. Réseau d’information sur la sécurité alimentaire et Réseau mondial contre les crises alimentaires. 2022. Global report on food crises. Joint analysis for better decisions. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb9997en/.

112. L’IPC/CH (https://tinyurl.com/2f493e53) est une initiative multipartenaires visant à améliorer l’analyse de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition et la prise de décisions dans ce domaine. Il permet de classifier l’insécurité alimentaire aiguë en cinq phases: 1) minimale/aucune, 2) sous pression, 3) crise, 4) urgence et 5) catastrophe/famine.

113. Les conflits et l’insécurité étaient à l’origine d’environ 72 pour cent des situations de crise (tous facteurs confondus) touchant 193 millions de personnes dans 53 pays. En comparaison, 30,2 millions de personnes ont été touchées par des chocs économiques et 23,5 millions par des phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes.

114. Corral, P., Irwin, A., Krishnan, N., Gerszon Mahler, D., et Vishwanath, T. 2020. Fragility and conflict: On the front lines of the fight against poverty. Banque mondiale, Washington.

115. Mane, E., Macchioni, G. A., Cafiero, C., et Viviani, S. (à paraître). Why women are more food insecure than men? Exploring socio-economic drivers and the role of COVID-19 in widening the global gender gap. Background paper for The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023.

116. FAO. 2017. Food security, sustaining peace and gender equality: conceptual framework and future directions. SP5 Discussion Paper. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7610e.pdf.

117. Justino, P., Cadorna, I., Mitchell, B., et Müller, C. 2012. Women working for recovery: The impact of female employment on family and community welfare after conflict. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

118. Strachan, A. L., et Haider, H. 2015. Gender and conflict: Topic guide. Centre de ressources sur la gouvernance et le développement social, Université de Birmingham, Birmingham (Royaume-Uni).

119. Kool, T. 2015. Moving beyond the UNSCR 1325 framework: Women as economic participants during and after conflict. MERIT Working Papers 2015-034. Université des Nations Unies – Centre de recherche économique et sociale et de formation de Maastricht pour l’innovation et la technologie, Maastricht (Pays-Bas). https://tinyurl.com/ytxm98e2.

120. ONU-Femmes et DESA, Division de statistique. 2022. Progrès vers la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable – Gros plan sur l’égalité des sexes 2022. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2022-fr.pdf.

121. Nedal, D., Stewart, M., et Weintraub, M. 2020. Urban concentration and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(6): 1146-1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002719892054.

122. Radil, S., Walther, O., Dorward, N., et Pflaum, M. 2022. Urban-rural geographies of political violence in North and West Africa. Rochester (États-Unis d’Amérique), Réseau de recherches en sciences sociales. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4171240.

123. FAO. 2022. The importance of Ukraine and the Russian Federation for global agricultural markets and the risks associated with the current conflict. Information Note. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb9013en/cb9013en.pdf.

124. Bryan, E., Ringler, C., et Lefore, N. 2022. To ease the world food crisis, focus resources on women and girls. Nature, 609(7925): 28-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02312-8.

125. Brück, T., et Vothknecht, M. 2011. Impact of violent conflicts on women’s economic opportunities. In K. Kuehnast, C. de Jonge Oudraat et H. Hernes (sous la direction de). Women and war – Power and protection in the 21st century, p. 86-114. Institut américain pour la paix, Washington.

126. Buvinic, M., Das Gupta, M., Casabonne, U., et Verwimp, P. 2013. Violent conflict and gender inequality: An overview. The World Bank Research Observer, 28(1): 110-138. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lks011.

127. FAO. 2018. How can we protect men, women and children from gender-based violence? Addressing GBV in the food security and agriculture sector. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i7928en/I7928EN.pdf.

128. Brück, T., Ronzani, P., et Stojetz, W. (à paraître). Armed conflict and gendered participation in agrifood systems: Survey evidence from 1.8 million individuals in 29 countries. Background paper for The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023. FAO, Rome, et Centre international pour la sécurité et le développement, Berlin.

129. Pulido-Velasquez, M. A., Alegría Castellanos, A., et Cruz, C. J. 2022. Armed conflict and unemployment in Colombia: The role of US interdiction policy. Réseau de recherches en sciences sociales, Rochester (États-Unis d’Amérique). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4231684.

130. Lewis, D., Kebede, G., Brown, A., et Mackie, P. 2019. Surviving, managing, thriving: The informal economy in post-conflict cities. Programme des Nations Unies pour les établissements humains, Nairobi. https://tinyurl.com/5c5dv2w2.

Chapitre 6

1. Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J., et Basset, L. 2011. Gender and the global food-price crisis. Development in Practice, 21(4–5): 488-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2011.561283.

2. FAO. 2021. La Situation mondiale de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture 2021. Rendre les systèmes agroalimentaires plus résilients face aux chocs et aux situations de stress. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476fr.

3. Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni) et New York (États-Unis). doi:10.1017/9781009325844.

4. Sultana, F. 2021. Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of injustices: A feminist reading of overlapping crises. Social & Cultural Geography, 22(4): 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1910994.

5. Koo, J., Azzarri, C., Mishra, A., Lecoutere, E., Puskur, R., Chanana, N., Singaraju, N., Nico, G., et Khatri-Chhetri, A. 2022. Effectively targeting climate investments: A methodology for mapping climate–agriculture–gender inequality hotspots. Working Paper. Plateforme GENDER du CGIAR. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/119602.

6. Hallegatte, S., Fay, M., et Barbier. E. M. 2018. Poverty and climate change: Introduction. Environment and Development Economics, 23(3): 217-233.

7. Dennig F., Budolfson, M. B., Fleurbaey, M., Siebert, A., et Socolow, R. H. 2015. Inequality, climate impacts on the future poor, and carbon prices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 15827-15832.

8. Olsson, L., Opondo, M., Tschakert, P., Agrawal, A., Eriksen, S. H., Ma, S., Perch, L. N., et Zakieldeen, S. A. 2014. Livelihoods and poverty. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee et al. (sous la direction de). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 793-832. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni).

9. Koubi, V. 2019. Climate change and conflict. Annual Review of Political Science, 22: 343-360.

10. Sharifi, A., Simangan, D., Lee, C. Y., Reyes, S. R., Katramiz, T., Josol, J. C., Dos Muchangos, L. et al. 2021. Climate-induced stressors to peace: A review of recent literature. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (7): 073006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfc08.

11. Thomas, D., Beegle, K., et Frankenberg, E. 2000. Labor market transitions of men and women during an economic crisis: Evidence from Indonesia. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/DRU2344.html.

12. L’analyse porte sur les données relatives à l’Argentine, à l’Indonésie, à la Malaisie, au Mexique, à la République de Corée, à la Thaïlande et à la Türkiye. L’emploi agricole a progressé dans tous les pays à l’exception de la Malaisie et du Mexique.

13. Sabarwal, S., Sinha, N., et Buvinic, M. 2013. How do women weather economic shocks? A review of the evidence. Working Paper. Policy Research Working Papers. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5496.

14. Fallon, P. R., et Lucas, R. E. 2002. The impact of financial crises on labor markets, household incomes, and poverty: A review of evidence. Banque mondiale, Washington.

15. Les estimations reposent sur les données relatives à l’emploi des femmes et des hommes dans les systèmes agroalimentaires qui ont été présentées au chapitre 2.

16. McDermott, J., et Swinnen, J. 2022. COVID-19 and global food security: Two years later. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896294226.

17. Ceballos, F., Kannan, S., et Kramer, B. 2020. Impacts of a national lockdown on smallholder farmers’ income and food security: Empirical evidence from two states in India. World Development, 136: 105069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105069.

18. Les données pour 2021 n’étant pas disponibles pour l’ensemble des pays au moment de la rédaction du rapport, la période couverte s’arrête à 2020.

19. Flor, L. S., Friedman, J., Spencer, C. N., Cagney, J., Arrieta, A., Herbert, M. E., Stein, C. et al. 2022. Quantifying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality on health, social, and economic indicators: A comprehensive review of data from March, 2020, to September, 2021. The Lancet, 399 (10344): 2381-2397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00008-3.

20. OIT. 2021. Bâtir un avenir plus équitable: les droits des femmes au travail et en milieu de travail au cœur de la reprise post-COVID. Note de synthèse de l’OIT. Genève (Suisse).

21. Bundervoet, T., Dávalos, M. E., et Garcia, N. 2022. The short-term impacts of COVID-19 on households in developing countries: An overview based on a harmonized dataset of high-frequency surveys. World Development, 153: 105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105844.

22. Bargain, O., et Aminjonov, U. 2021. Poverty and COVID-19 in Africa and Latin America. World Development, 142: 105422. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105422.

23. Han, J., Meyer, B. D., et Sullivan, J. X. 2020. Income and poverty in the COVID-19 pandemic. Working Paper No. 27729. Bureau national de recherche économique, Cambridge (États-Unis d’Amérique). http://www.nber.org/papers/w27729.

24. Headey, D. D., Oo, T. Z., Mahrt, K., Diao, X., Goudet, S., et Lambrecht, I. 2020. Poverty, food insecurity, and social protection during COVID-19 in Myanmar: Combined evidence from a household telephone survey and micro-simulations. Strategy Support Program Policy Note 35. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134144.

25. ONU-Femmes. 2021. Mesurer la pandémie de l’ombre: la violence à l’égard des femmes pendant la pandémie de covid-19. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

26. FAO. 2023. Les conséquences de la covid-19 sur le travail des enfants dans les systèmes agroalimentaires. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2136fr.

27. Dessy, S., Gninafon, H., Tiberti, L., et Tiberti, M. 2021. COVID-19 and children’s school resilience: Evidence from Nigeria. GLO Discussion Paper No. 952. Global Labor Organization, Essen (Allemagne). http://hdl.handle.net/10419/243100.

28. Groupe d’experts de haut niveau sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition. 2020. Impacts de la covid-19 sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition: élaborer des mesures efficaces pour lutter contre la pandémie de faim et de malnutrition. Document de synthèse du Groupe d’experts de haut niveau. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/ng808fr/ng808fr.pdf.

29. Doss, C., Njuki, J., et Mika, H. 2020. The potential intersections of Covid-19, gender and food security in Africa. Agri-Gender – Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 5(1): 41-48. https://doi.org/10.19268/JGAFS.512020.4.

30. Kumar, N., et Quisumbing, A. R. 2013. Gendered impacts of the 2007–2008 food price crisis: Evidence using panel data from rural Ethiopia. Food Policy, 38: 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.002.

31. CARE. 2020. Gender implications of COVID-19 outbreaks in development and humanitarian settings. CARE International, Genève (Suisse).

32. Comité permanent interorganisations. 2020. Orientation provisoire: Alerte sur le genre pour la pandémie de covid-19. Genève (Suisse).

33. Andrews, S. K., Gabat, J., Jolink, G., et Klugman, J. 2021. Responding to rising intimate partner violence amid COVID-19—A rapid global review. DLA Piper/New Perimeter. Institut de Georgetown pour les femmes, la paix et la sécurité, Washington.

34. Peterman, A., Potts, A., O’Donnell, M., Thompson, K., Shah, N., Oertelt-Prigione, S., et Van Gelder, N. 2020. Pandemics and violence against women and children. Working Paper. Vol. 528. Centre pour le développement mondial, Washington.

35. FAO. 2020. Effets sexospécifiques de la covid-19 et mesures de politique générale équitables en matière d’agriculture, de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9198fr.

36. Gavrilovic, M., Rubio, M., Bastagli, F., Hinton, R., Staab, S., Goulder, R. G., Bilo, C. et al. 2022. Gender-responsive social protection post–COVID-19. Science, 375(6585): 1111-1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm5922.

37. Campbell, B. 2022. Climate change impacts and adaptation options in the agrifood system: A summary of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sixth Assesment Report. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0425en.

38. Bryan, E., Alvi, M., Huyer, S., et Ringler, C. 2023. Addressing gender inequalities and strengthening women’s agency for climate-resilient and sustainable food systems. CGIAR GENDER Impact Platform Working Paper. Plateforme GENDER Impact du CGIAR, Nairobi.

39. Huyer, S., Gumucio, T., Tavenner, K., Acosta, M., Chanana, N., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Mungai, C. et al. 2021. From vulnerability to agency in climate adaptation and mitigation. In R. Pyburn et A. H. J. M. van Eerdewijk (sous la direction de). Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future, p. 261-294. IFPRI, Washington.

40. Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C., Asher, K., Brockhaus, M., et Basnett Sijapati, B. 2016. Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio, 45(S3): 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2.

41. Andrijevic, M., Crespo Cuaresma, J., Lissner, T., Thomas, A., et Schleussner, C.-F. 2020. Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19856-w.

42. Alston, M. 2021. Gender and disasters. In T. Väyrynen, S. Parashar, É. Féron et C. C. Confortini (sous la direction de). Routledge handbook of feminist peace research, p. 343-353. Routledge, Abingdon (Royaume-Uni).

43. Chanana-Nag, N., et Aggarwal, P. K. 2020. Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: Hotspots for development. Climatic Change, 158(1): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2233-z.

44. Magassa, M., Partey, S., Houessionon, P., Dembele, S., Ouédraogo, M., et Zougmoré, R. B. 2020. Towards gender-informed adaptation planning in the Sudanian zone of Mali: Analysis of climate change vulnerability CCAFS Working Paper No. 310. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/108325.

45. Twyman, J., Acosta, M., et Irigoyen, M. 2022. Gender relations and inequalities in the Amazon: The potential of geospatial systems to address gender inequalities. A study by the SERVIR-Amazonia Program. Centre SERVIR-Amazonia, Cali (Colombie). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/121882.

46. Rao, N., Lawson, E. T., Raditloaneng, W. N., Solomon, D., et Angula, M. N. 2019. Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change: Insights from the semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia. Climate and Development, 11(1): 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1372266.

47. Nkengla-Asi, L., Babu, S. C., Kirscht, H., Apfelbacher, S., Hanna, R., et Tegbaru, A. 2017. Gender, climate change, and resilient food systems lessons from strategic adaptation by smallholder farmers in Cameroon. IFPRI Discussion Papers 1658. IFPRI, Washington.

48. Grasham, C. F., Korzenevica, M., et Charles, K. J. 2019. On considering climate resilience in urban water security: A review of the vulnerability of the urban poor in sub-Saharan Africa. WIREs Water, 6(3): e1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1344.

49. Doocy, S., Daniels, A., Murray, S., et Kirsch, T. D. 2013. The human impact of floods: A historical review of events 1980-2009 and systematic literature review. PLoS Currents, 5: ecurrents.dis.f4deb457904936b07c09daa98ee8171a. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644291/.

50. Erman, A., De Vries Robbe, S. A., Thies, S. F., Kabir, K., et Maruo, M. 2021. Gender dimensions of disaster risk and resilience: Existing evidence. Banque mondiale, Washington. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35202.

51. Neumayer, E., et Plümper, T. 2007. The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3): 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x.

52. Picard, M. 2021. Empowering women in climate, environment and disaster risk governance: From national policy to local action. Background paper prepared for the Expert Group Meeting “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes”, 11–14 October 2021. EGM/ENV/BP.1. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

53. Hunter, L. M., Castro, J., Kleiber, D., et Hutchens, K. 2016. Swimming and gendered vulnerabilities: Evidence from the northern and central Philippines. Society & Natural Resources, 29(3): 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1046097.

54. MacDonald, R. 2005. How women were affected by the tsunami: A perspective from Oxfam. PLoS Medicine, 2(6): e178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020178.

55. Ikeda, K. 1995. Gender differences in human loss and vulnerability in natural disasters: A case study from Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2(2):171-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152159500200202.

56. Sultana, F. 2014. Gendering climate change: Geographical insights. The Professional Geographer, 66(3): 372-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.821730.

57. Folkerts, M. A., Bröde, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Martinius, M. L., Gerrett, N., Harmsen, C. N., et Daanen, H. A. M. 2022. Sex differences in temperature-related all-cause mortality in the Netherlands. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 95(1): 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01721-y.

58. Ellena, M., Ballester, J., Mercogliano, P., Ferracin, E., Barbato, G., Costa, G., et Ingole, V. 2020. Social inequalities in heat-attributable mortality in the city of Turin, northwest of Italy: A time series analysis from 1982 to 2018. Environmental Health, 19(1): 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00667-x.

59. Van Steen, Y., Ntarladima, A.-M., Grobbee, R., Karssenberg, D., et Vaartjes, I. 2019. Sex differences in mortality after heat waves: Are elderly women at higher risk? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 92(1): 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1360-1.

60. CDC (Centres pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies). 2020. QuickStats: Number of natural heat-related deaths, by sex and age group—National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2018. In Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Centre pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies, Atlanta (États-Unis d’Amérique). Consulté le 16 février 2023.

61. Van Daalen, K. R., Kallesøe, S. S., Davey, F., Dada, S., Jung, L., Singh, L., Issa, R. et al. 2022. Extreme events and gender-based violence: A mixed-methods systematic review. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(6): e504–e523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00088-2.

62. Thurston, A. M., Stöckl, H., et Ranganathan, M. 2021. Natural hazards, disasters and violence against women and girls: A global mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 6(4), e004377. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004377.

63. Sanz-Barbero, B., Linares, C., Vives-Cases, C., González, J. L., López-Ossorio, J. J., et Díaz, J. 2018. Heat wave and the risk of intimate partner violence. Science of The Total Environment, 644: 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.368.

64. Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (sous la direction de). 2014. Annex II: Glossary. In Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Part B: Regional aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, p. 1757-1776. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.011.

65. Kristjanson, P., Bryan, E., Bernier, Q., Twyman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Kieran, C., Ringler, C., Jost, C., et Doss, C. 2017. Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(5): 482500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411.

66. Bryan, E., Kato, E., et Bernier, Q. 2021. Gender differences in awareness and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in Bangladesh. In J. Eastin et K. Dupuy (sous la direction de). Gender, climate change and livelihoods: Vulnerabilities and adaptations, p. 123-142. CABI, Wallingford (Royaume-Uni). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789247053.0010.

67. Ngigi, M. W., Mueller, U., et Birner, R. 2017. Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: An intra-household analysis from rural Kenya. Ecological Economics, 138: 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.019.

68. Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal, P. et al. 2016. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development, 8(2): 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050978.

69. Murray, U., Gebremedhin, Z., Brychkova, G., et Spillane, C. 2016. Smallholder farmers and climate smart agriculture: Technology and labor-productivity constraints amongst women smallholders in Malawi. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(2): 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852416640639.

70. Perez, C., Jones, E., Kristjanson, P., Cramer, L., Thornton, P. K., Förch, W., et Barahona, C. 2015. How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environmental Change, 34: 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.003.

71. Murage, A. W., Pittchar, J. O., Midega, C. A. O., Onyango, C. O., et Khan, Z. R. 2015. Gender specific perceptions and adoption of the climate-smart push–pull technology in eastern Africa. Crop Protection, 76: 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.06.014.

72. Mutenje, M. J., Farnworth, C. R., Stirling, C., Thierfelder, C., Mupangwa, W., et Nyagumbo, I. 2019. A cost-benefit analysis of climate-smart agriculture options in southern Africa: Balancing gender and technology. Ecological Economics, 163: 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.013.

73. Grassi, F., Landberg, J., et Huyer, S. 2015. Running out of time: The reduction of women’s work burden in agricultural production. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i4741e/i4741e.pdf.

74. FAO. 2022. Site internet du Guide de référence de l’agriculture intelligente face au climat. In Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture. Rome. https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/fr/ (consulté le 14 mars 2023).

75. Sumner, D., Christie, M. E., et Boulakia, S. 2017. Conservation agriculture and gendered livelihoods in Northwestern Cambodia: Decision-making, space and access. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2): 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9718-z.

76. Kiptot, E., et Franzel, S. 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.

77. Farnworth, C. R., Stirling, C., Sapkota, T. B., Jat, M. L., Misiko, M., et Attwood, S. 2017. Gender and inorganic nitrogen: What are the implications of moving towards a more balanced use of nitrogen fertilizer in the tropics? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(2): 136-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1295343.

78. Otieno, G., Zebrowski, W. M., Recha, J., et Reynolds, T. W. 2021. Gender and social seed networks for climate change adaptation: Evidence from bean, finger millet, and sorghum seed systems in East Africa. Sustainability, 13(4): Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042074.

79. Hosken, L. 2017. The critical role that African rural women play as custodians of seed diversity and wild relatives in the context of climate change. Biodiversity, 18(2–3): 98-101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14888386.2017.1351893.

80. Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Huyer, S., et van Huysen, T. 2019. Gender-responsive rural climate services: A review of the literature. Climate and Development, 12(3): 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1613216.

81. FIDA. 2021. Transforming food systems for rural prosperity: Rural Development Report 2021. Rome. https://tinyurl.com/3dcb6fsd.

82. Akter, S., Krupnik, T. J., Rossi, F., et Khanam, F. 2016. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38: 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.010.

83. Twyman, J., Green, M., Bernier, Q., Kristjanson, P., Russo, S., Tall, A., Ampaire, E. et al. 2014. Adaptation actions in Africa: Evidence that gender matters. CCAFS Working Paper No. 83. Programme sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Copenhague.

84. Duffy, C., Toth, G., Cullinan, J., Murray, U., et Spillane, C. 2021. Climate smart agriculture extension: Gender disparities in agroforestry knowledge acquisition. Climate and Development, 13(1): 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1715912.

85. Partey, S. T., Dakorah, A. D., Zougmoré, R. B., Ouédraogo, M., Nyasimi, M., Nikoi, G. K., et Huyer, S. 2020. Gender and climate risk management: Evidence of climate information use in Ghana. Climatic Change, 158(1): 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2239-6.

86. Acosta, M., Bonilla-Findji, O., Eitzinger, A., Arora, D., Martinez-Baron, D., Bejarano, G., et Suchini, J. G. 2019. Examining gender differences in the access to and implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices in Central America. CCAFS Info Note. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/103471.Timu, A., et Kramer, B. 2021. Gender-inclusive, -responsive and -transformative agricultural insurance: A literature review. CCAFS Working Paper No. 417. Programme du CGIAR sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/117797.

87. Aheeyar, M., de Silva, S., Senaratna-Sellamuttu, S., et Arulingam, I. 2019. Unpacking barriers to socially inclusive weather index insurance: Towards a framework for inclusion. Water, 11(11): 2235. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112235.

88. Birir, A. K. 2020. Effect of social capital on adoption of climate-smart agriculture in Nyando Basin, Kenya. CCAFS Info Note. Programme sur le changement climatique, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, Wageningue (Pays-Bas).

89. Muttarak, R., et Lutz, W. 2014. Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and hence unavoidable climate change? Ecology and Society, 19(1): 42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06476-190142.

90. Kwauk, C., et Braga, A. 2017. Three platforms for girls’ education in climate strategies. Brooke Shearer Series, No. 6. Brookings, Washington.

91. Sims, K. 2021. Education, girls’ education and climate change. K4D Emerging Issues Report 29. Institut sur les études du développement, Londres. https://doi.org/10.19088/K4D.2021.044.

92. Staffieri, I., Sitko, N., et Maluccio, J. 2022. Sustaining school enrolment when rains fail: A gender disaggregated analysis of the impacts of school feeding programmes on school enrolment in the context of dry shocks in Malawi. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9915en.

93. Bryan, E., Theis, S., Choufani, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Ringler, C., et De Pinto, A. 2017. Gender-sensitive, climate-smart agriculture for improved nutrition in Africa south of the Sahara. In A. De Pinto et J. M. Ulimwengu (sous la direction de). A thriving agricultural sector in a changing climate: Meeting Malabo Declaration goals through climate-smart agriculture, p. 114-135. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292949_09.

94. Ahmad, D., Afzal, M., et Rauf, A. 2021. Flood hazards adaptation strategies: A gender-based disaggregated analysis of farm-dependent Bait community in Punjab, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(1): 865-886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00612-5.

95. Anugwa, I. Q., Agwu, A. E., Suvedi, M., et Babu, S. 2020. Gender-specific livelihood strategies for coping with climate change-induced food insecurity in southeast Nigeria. Food Security, 12(5): 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01042-x.

96. Bastakoti, G. B., et Doneys, P. 2020. Gendered perceptions of climate variability, food insecurity, and adaptation practices in Nepal. Climate and Development, 12(6): 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1660604.

97. Mersha, A. A., et van Laerhoven, F. 2016. A gender approach to understanding the differentiated impact of barriers to adaptation: Responses to climate change in rural Ethiopia. Regional Environmental Change, 16(6): 1701-1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0921-z.

98. Algur, K. D., Patel, S. K., et Chauhan, S. 2021. The impact of drought on the health and livelihoods of women and children in India: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 122: 105909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105909.

99. Quisumbing, A. R., Kumar, N., et Behrman, J. A. 2018. Do shocks affect men’s and women’s assets differently? Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda. Development Policy Review, 36(1): 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12235.

100. Lei, L., et Desai, S. 2021. Male out-migration and the health of left-behind wives in India: The roles of remittances, household responsibilities, and autonomy. Social Science & Medicine, 280: 113982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113982.

101. Agadjanian, V., Hayford, S. R., et Jansen, N. A. 2021. Men’s migration and women’s mortality in rural Mozambique. Social Science & Medicine, 270: 113519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113519.

102. Lee, Y., Haile, B., Seymour, G., et Azzarri, C. 2021. The heat never bothered me anyway: Gender-specific response of agricultural labor to climatic shocks in Tanzania. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(2): 732-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13153.

103. Nico, G., et Azzarri, C. 2022. Weather variability and extreme shocks in Africa: Are female or male farmers more affected? IFPRI Discussion Paper 2115. IFPRI, Washington. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.135870.

104. Agamile, P., et Lawson, D. 2021. Rainfall shocks and children’s school attendance: Evidence from Uganda. Oxford Development Studies, 49(3): 291-309.

105. Björkman-Nyqvist, M. 2013. Income shocks and gender gaps in education: Evidence from Uganda. Journal of Development Economics, 105: 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.07.013.

106. UICN. 2021. Gender and national climate planning: Gender integration in the revised Nationally Determined Contributions. Gland (Suisse). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49860.

107. Carrico, A. R., Donato, K. M., Best, K. B., et Gilligan, J. 2020. Extreme weather and marriage among girls and women in Bangladesh. Global Environmental Change, 65: 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102160.

108. FAO, FIDA, OMS, PAM et UNICEF. 2017. L’État de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le monde 2017. Renforcer la résilience pour favoriser la paix et la sécurité alimentaire. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I7695f/I7695f.pdf.

109. FAO. 2019. Aperçu régional de l’état de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. Transformation rurale – Clé du développement durable au Proche-Orient et en Afrique du Nord. Le Caire. https://www.fao.org/3/ca3817fr/ca3817fr.pdf.

110. Réseau d’information sur la sécurité alimentaire et Réseau mondial contre les crises alimentaires. 2022. Global report on food crises. Joint analysis for better decisions. FAO, Rome. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb9997en/.

111. L’IPC/CH (https://tinyurl.com/2f493e53) est une initiative multipartenaires visant à améliorer l’analyse de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition et la prise de décisions dans ce domaine. Il permet de classifier l’insécurité alimentaire aiguë en cinq phases: 1) minimale/aucune, 2) sous pression, 3) crise, 4) urgence et 5) catastrophe/famine.

112. Les conflits et l’insécurité étaient à l’origine d’environ 72 pour cent des situations de crise (tous facteurs confondus) touchant 193 millions de personnes dans 53 pays. En comparaison, 30,2 millions de personnes ont été touchées par des chocs économiques et 23,5 millions par des phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes.

113. Corral, P., Irwin, A., Krishnan, N., Gerszon Mahler, D., et Vishwanath, T. 2020. Fragility and conflict: On the front lines of the fight against poverty. Banque mondiale, Washington.

114. Mane, E., Macchioni, G. A., Cafiero, C., et Viviani, S. (à paraître). Why women are more food insecure than men? Exploring socio-economic drivers and the role of COVID-19 in widening the global gender gap. Background paper for The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023.

115. FAO. 2017. Food security, sustaining peace and gender equality: conceptual framework and future directions. SP5 Discussion Paper. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7610e.pdf.

116. Justino, P., Cadorna, I., Mitchell, B., et Müller, C. 2012. Women working for recovery: The impact of female employment on family and community welfare after conflict. ONU-Femmes, New York (États-Unis d’Amérique).

117. Strachan, A. L., et Haider, H. 2015. Gender and conflict: Topic guide. Centre de ressources sur la gouvernance et le développement social, Université de Birmingham, Birmingham (Royaume-Uni).

118. Kool, T. 2015. Moving beyond the UNSCR 1325 framework: Women as economic participants during and after conflict. MERIT Working Papers 2015-034. Université des Nations Unies – Centre de recherche économique et sociale et de formation de Maastricht pour l’innovation et la technologie, Maastricht (Pays-Bas). https://tinyurl.com/ytxm98e2.

119. ONU-Femmes et DESA, Division de statistique. 2022. Progrès vers la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable – Gros plan sur l’égalité des sexes 2022. New York (États-Unis d’Amérique). https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2022-fr.pdf.

120. Nedal, D., Stewart, M., et Weintraub, M. 2020. Urban concentration and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(6): 1146-1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002719892054.

121. Radil, S., Walther, O., Dorward, N., et Pflaum, M. 2022. Urban-rural geographies of political violence in North and West Africa. Rochester (États-Unis d’Amérique), Réseau de recherches en sciences sociales. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4171240.

122. FAO. 2022. The importance of Ukraine and the Russian Federation for global agricultural markets and the risks associated with the current conflict. Information Note. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb9013en/cb9013en.pdf.

123. Bryan, E., Ringler, C., et Lefore, N. 2022. To ease the world food crisis, focus resources on women and girls. Nature, 609(7925): 28-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02312-8.

124. Brück, T., et Vothknecht, M. 2011. Impact of violent conflicts on women’s economic opportunities. In K. Kuehnast, C. de Jonge Oudraat et H. Hernes (sous la direction de). Women and war – Power and protection in the 21st century, p. 86-114. Institut américain pour la paix, Washington.

125. Buvinic, M., Das Gupta, M., Casabonne, U., et Verwimp, P. 2013. Violent conflict and gender inequality: An overview. The World Bank Research Observer, 28(1): 110-138. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lks011.

126. FAO. 2018. How can we protect men, women and children from gender-based violence? Addressing GBV in the food security and agriculture sector. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i7928en/I7928EN.pdf.

127. Brück, T., Ronzani, P., et Stojetz, W. (à paraître). Armed conflict and gendered participation in agrifood systems: Survey evidence from 1.8 million individuals in 29 countries. Background paper for The status of women in agrifood systems, 2023. FAO, Rome, et Centre international pour la sécurité et le développement, Berlin.

128. Pulido-Velasquez, M. A., Alegría Castellanos, A., et Cruz, C. J. 2022. Armed conflict and unemployment in Colombia: The role of US interdiction policy. Réseau de recherches en sciences sociales, Rochester (États-Unis d’Amérique). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4231684.

129. Lewis, D., Kebede, G., Brown, A., et Mackie, P. 2019. Surviving, managing, thriving: The informal economy in post-conflict cities. Programme des Nations Unies pour les établissements humains, Nairobi. https://tinyurl.com/5c5dv2w2.

Glossary

1. Kabeer, N. 1999. Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3): 435-464.

2. FAO, FIDA et PAM. 2022. Guide to formulating gendered social norms indicators in the context of food security and nutrition. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0673en.

Annex 1

1. International Labour Organization. 2023. ILOSTAT. In: International Labour Organization. Cited 25 January 2023. https://ilostat.ilo.org/

2. Davis, B., Mane, E., Gurbuzer, L.Y., Caivano, G., Piedrahita, N., Schneider, K., Azhar, N. et al. 2023. Estimating global and country-level employment in agrifood systems. FAO Statistics Working Paper Series, No. 23–34. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4337en

3. Annex 4

1. Cavatassi, R., Mabiso, A. et Brueckmann, P. 2019. Impact assessment report: Republic of Indonesia, Coastal Community Development Project. Rome, International Fund for Agricultural Development. https://tinyurl.com/2p8zn2f

2. IFAD. 2022. IFAD11 impact assessment report. Rome. https://tinyurl.com/5y5px5ak

3. L’ampleur moyenne des effets issue de la méta-analyse est validée en estimant les incidences à partir des données totalisées au niveau des ménages. Le FIDA relance les analyses en fusionnant l’ensemble des données relatives à l’évaluation de l’impact au niveau individuel et mène une analyse groupée qui permet de neutraliser les caractéristiques spécifiques aux pays/projets pour lesquelles on ne peut pas réunir d’observations et qui sont susceptibles d’avoir des effets. Les données, les programmes et d’autres détails relatifs aux calculs qui permettent une reproduction et, dans le même temps, leur révision sont chiffrés et rendus anonymes (Arslan A., et Cavatassi, R. 2022. IFAD’s methods for impact assessments, a summary note, FIDA, Rome).

4. Mise au point à partir du pouvoir de décision sur les revenus et/ou les ressources attribué aux femmes ou conjointement aux femmes et aux hommes. Les projets dont la valeur de cette variable est au moins égale à la valeur moyenne agrégée sont considérés comme des projets qui, par rapport aux autres, contribuent à l’automatisation des femmes.

5. Ipienihilles quam, con coresequi dit omnimus am siti ditasperem consequiae secus earcilibus aut et venemporrum que nime et dolore optaestrum ariatqui resti nos vollaborem aut deri debit aut quo maximus aut odi aut aruptat libea et lacepeles quaero et verchictia perum, quodis numquo dolorporror soluptur re repudipsus eat eos initinc iatiam aligent perumet eum evelignat.

6. Simusam ilicientem restisciae nos erspitatus mi, omniet latiur?