SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
agroecology
Women’s Land Rights: The Missing Key to Climate Action
This year’s International Women’s Day theme, #AccelerateAction, calls on the world to address the structural barriers slowing progress. If we are serious about climate, we must start at the root of the problem: land access.
Mar 08, 2025
Land is not just a means of survival; it is one of our most powerful tools to combat climate change and nature loss. Healthy soil sequesters carbon, retains water, supports biodiversity, and—crucially—underpins food production. When land is degraded—through deforestation, overexploitation, or poor management—it shifts from being a carbon sink to a source of emissions, disrupting local water cycles, accelerating desertification, and sparking food insecurity. This degradation has direct consequences, such as the catastrophic flooding that hit Valencia last year, where altered landscapes and poor land stewardship exacerbated extreme weather impacts.
Without land security, women farmers remain locked out of decision-making, deprived of resources, and forced to fight climate change and nature loss with one hand tied behind their backs.
The link between land health, food security, and climate resilience is clear. But the role of women—who form the backbone of food production globally—is often overlooked. Women have extensive ecological knowledge and are key stewards of land, particularly those in rural and Indigenous communities. Women produce up to 80% of the world’s food, consumed by families and communities worldwide, and account for between 30-40% of the agricultural workforce. Yet, fewer than 20% of landowners are women—and, in half of the world’s countries, they have little to no rights or decision-making power over the land they work. This systemic land insecurity undermines their ability to implement long-term soil and land restoration practices crucial for climate adaptation.
The Three Systemic Barriers to Women’s Leadership in Land Restoration
To truly #AccelerateAction, as this year’s International Women’s Day theme calls for, we must address the root of the problem: land access. Without secure land tenure, women farmers face three systemic challenges.
Limited decision-making power results in less resilient agriculture: Studies from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) indicate that women farmers with land rights are more likely to invest in soil conservation and water retention techniques, which are crucial for adapting to climate change. Without control over their land, women are often forced to comply with farming methods that may coincidentally be more planet-friendly (due to women lacking access to resources like chemical inputs) but are often less efficient and reduce resilience to yield variation. Women’s land insecurity translates into a lack of autonomy in adopting and scaling climate-smart farming methods that can both render their community more climate resilient and reduce hunger.
Restricted access to funding and training: Despite their deep knowledge of sustainable farming, women are often systematically denied access to credit, training, and agricultural extension services. A report by the World Bank found that if women had the same access to resources as men, agricultural yields could increase by up to 30%, reducing global hunger. Yet, because they often lack legal land ownership, they are sometimes ineligible for loans and grants that could help them transition to nature-positive forms of agriculture. Bridging this gap would not only benefit women but also strengthen global food security and climate resilience.
The disproportionate impact of climate change on women: Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, and land degradation disproportionately affects women. Roughly 80% of the people displaced by climate disasters are women. In communities where women lack land rights, they have fewer options for adaptation and recovery. Secure land tenure empowers women to implement long-term solutions that enhance climate resilience, from agroecological practices to community-led reforestation projects.
The Path Forward: Solutions for Gender-Inclusive Land Restoration
Landscape restoration is only possible when everyone in the community—including women—has the rights, resources, and recognition they deserve. Ensuring land tenure for women is not just about equity—it’s about survival. Women are already leading land restoration efforts across the globe. In Kenya, the Green Belt Movement, founded by Wangari Maathai, has empowered thousands of women to restore degraded forests, leading to the planting of over 50 million trees. In India, women-led self-help groups have restored thousands of hectares of farmland through water conservation and agroecology. These initiatives prove that when women have control over land, they invest in solutions that benefit both people and the planet. And it’s not rocket science—there are concrete policy solutions that can ensure women can lead the charge in restoring land and combating climate change.
In order to increase and enforce land rights for women, countries must reform laws that restrict women’s access to land. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, customary laws often prevent women from inheriting land, even when statutory laws permit it. Enforcing legal protections is critical. In addition, more funding opportunities must be available to women in agriculture: Only 6% of agricultural aid funding worldwide treats gender as a fundamental issue. Governments and financial institutions must close the agriculture funding gap for women through targeted grants, subsidies, and loan programs. In tandem, women’s traditional knowledge of farming and conservation must be supported with expanded access to climate-smart agricultural training. Finally, climate-smart agricultural training must consider gender dynamics, as poorly designed programmes can unintentionally empower men while sidelining women. Research shows that when gender is overlooked, existing inequalities can be reinforced. Organizations should recognize that technologies and policies often carry biases that can entrench power imbalances, restrict food security, and further marginalize women.
This year’s International Women’s Day theme, #AccelerateAction, calls on the world to address the structural barriers slowing progress. If we are serious about climate action, we must start at the root of the problem: land access. Without land security, women farmers remain locked out of decision-making, deprived of resources, and forced to fight climate change and nature loss with one hand tied behind their backs.
A just, climate-resilient future is not possible without women at the forefront of land restoration. By securing their rights to land, we not only restore degraded ecosystems but also unlock the full potential of those who have been caretakers of the Earth for generations. If we want to accelerate action, we must start by giving women the tools they need: land, security, and the power to lead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pesticide Scorecard Exposes Which Food Retailers Are Failing Bees
"Under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," said one climate advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
A report released Tuesday from the environmental group Friends of the Earth finds that the U.S. food retail sector's use of pesticides on just four crops—almonds, apples, soy, and corn—could result in over $200 billion worth of financial, climate, and biodiversity risks for the industry between 2024 and 2050. Pollinators, including bees, form a crucial link between pesticide use and these risks.
The report was released in tandem with the group's annual retailer scorecard, which ranks the largest U.S. grocery stores on the "steps they are taking to address the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and to support the expansion of organic agriculture and other ecological solutions."
While it highlights some industry leadership on this issue, the authors of the scorecard say that, on the whole, retailer action to curb the impact of pesticides falls short. The following retailers received an "F" grade from Friends of the Earth: Wakefern, Publix, Dollar General, 7-Eleven Inc., Hy-Vee, Walgreens, H-E-B, BJ's, Amazon, and Wegmans.
Although its owner, Amazon, received an F grade, the grocery store Whole Foods was the only retailer that was given an A grade.
A handful of the companies, including Whole Foods, have made time bound pledges to address pesticide use by requiring fresh produce suppliers to adopt ecological farming methods and to confirm their practices through third-party verifications. Eight companies have created policies that encourage suppliers to reduce the use of "pesticides of concern—including neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate—and to shift to least-toxic approaches," according to the scorecard.
Friends of the Earth's report on risks associated with pesticide use explains why scrutiny around retailers' use of pesticides is warranted, and why retailers themselves ought to be motivated to reduce these risks.
For one thing, "under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," according to Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth.
"Food retailers must urgently reduce their use of pesticides and advance organic and other ecologically regenerative approaches. They have the opportunity to lead in the fight against biodiversity collapse and climate change, helping to ensure Americans have continued access to healthy food," she said in a statement.
An estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures, according to the report. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems.
According to the report, an estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline, per the report. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems, the report states.
The report states that 89% of the almond crop area, 72% of apples, 100% of corn, and 40% of soy receives more than one "lethal dose" of an insecticide that is considered toxic to bees. This "quantification of the risk of pesticides to pollinators" for the four crops "provides the values to conduct the financial analysis in this study."
The document details how the food retail industry's use of pesticides creates direct costs for the industry—for example, the money spent purchasing and applying the pesticides, the CO2 emissions associated with using or producing pesticides, and the impact on crop yields, as well as indirect costs.
When it comes to climate damage costs, the report estimates that U.S. food retailer sales for products that include soy, corn, apples, and almonds will suffer $4.5 billion over the period of 2024-50. Biodiversity risk stemming from using pollinator-harming pesticides on those four crops is valued much higher, at $34.3 billion, over the same time period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Bank Leads Development Giants in Investing $2.27 Billion in Factory Farms
"We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda," said one researcher.
Oct 21, 2024
The Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks together invested at least $2.27 billion in factory farming in 2023, undercutting their stated climate goals, according to a report published Monday by the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition.
The report, launched the same day as the start of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank's annual meetings in Washington, D.C., found that the World Bank was the worst offender. The bank—principally through its private-sector lending arm the International Finance Corporation (IFC)—put nearly $750 million toward industrial agricultural projects, five times more than any of the other banks.
"Factory farming is a leading driver of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss, animal cruelty, and water pollution," Merel van der Mark, head of Animal Welfare and Finance at Sinergia Animal, said in a statement. "Development banks have all pledged to align their investments with the Paris climate agreement, yet are failing to make the kinds of investments needed to keep the goal to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C within reach."
"There are examples of better practices out there."
The report was based on 2023 disclosure information scraped from project webpages by the Early Warning System. It found that the Green Climate Fund and 11 of the 15 multilateral development banks had invested a total of $3.3 billion in animal agriculture generally, funding 62 projects. The banks also mobilized another $3.4 billion for the sector from other sources including banks and governments. The World Bank Group also led the pack in animal agriculture financing overall at over $1.5 billion.
Factory farming—or industrial agriculture—received most of that money, representing 68.3% of investments and 76.7% of supported projects. Only 2.3% of investments and 6.7% of projects involved non-industrial farming that might potentially be sustainable.
The report's authors said their research "reveals a concerning trend toward support for the industrialization of animal agriculture." This can occur through more monocropping of plants like soy or corn for animal feed; more warehousing of large numbers of animals in concentrated feed operations that release large amounts of climate-, land-, and water-polluting waste; and the construction of slaughterhouses.
The World Bank's investments in factory farming go against its own research. The bank released a report in May finding that the agrifood system generates a third of total greenhouse gas emissions, and that animal production and consumption make up almost 60% of those emissions. It even stopped serving meat in its staff cafe.
"The World Bank has set out an ambitious road map to drastically cut agricultural emissions while feeding the world. However, this good work is being undermined by its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation," said International Accountability Project researcher Alessandro Ramazzotti. "Last year IFC invested $501 million in factory farming including a $47 million loan to a Chinese company for a multi-story pig farm, making it the largest investor of all the development banks. We're calling on World Bank President Ajay Banja to phase out these investments, which are undermining his climate agenda."
In addition, the groups behind the Stop Financing Factory Farming coalition—which is headed by Bank Information Center, Friends of the Earth U.S., Global Forest Coalition, International Accountability Project, Sinergia Animal, and World Animal Protection—call on all development banks to move their money from industrial agriculture to regenerative agriculture that boosts biodiversity, helps the environment, and strengthens local communities, following the model of the five banks in the report that did not invest in factory farms in 2023.
"There are examples of better practices out there," said Ladd Connell, environment director at Bank Information Center. "The Green Climate Fund supports some low-carbon projects, such as providing financial and technical support to smallholder women farmers in Cote D'Ivoire to help them adapt to climate change. Where banks invest in new livestock projects, they should be innovative and sustainable, following agroecological principles."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular