The global pledge to restore almost 125 million hectares of degraded forests and landscapes in response to the Bonn Challenge represents an opportunity to advance the triple goals of environmental conservation, poverty alleviation and gender equality. Many of these restoration effort concentrate on the small land patches managed by the world’s 1.6 billion smallholders — both women and men — who play a critical role in maintaining healthy ecosystems (Marjokorpi and Otsamo 2006). Yet, meaningfully engaging local people in restoration efforts in a way that safeguards their rights and advances their needs and interests remains a pressing challenge. What is more, women and marginalized groups are particularly susceptible to exclusion from decision-making and benefit sharing processes, as even in well-intentioned restoration initiatives, participation tends to be dominated by better resourced, educated, land-owning men from privileged socio cultural groups (Nederlof and Dangbegnon 2007). Initiatives that do not actively seek to protect the rights and promote the voices of marginalized groups may in fact reinforce social cleavages (McDermott 2008) and ultimately undermine the legitimacy and efficacy of restoration efforts.

There are many reasons for actively engaging with local women and men who contribute to, and are affected by, restoration initiatives. First and foremost, restoration initiatives often take place on lands claimed or utilized by communities, which may be considered ‘vacant’ or ‘underutilized’ by external actors and/or which may not be formally titled. If men are susceptible to losing their lands to restoration initiatives, rural women are all the more so, as their rights are especially tenuous due to legal and cultural barriers to women’s land rights and ownership (FAO 2005 and Elmhirst et al. 2017). Women’s (and poor men’s) insecure access to land and trees can also limit their ability and interest to plant or manage trees over which they may not have decision-making authority or long term access (Fortmann et al. 1997; Buyinza and Nabalegwa ). Hence, restoration efforts must begin with a careful understanding of local tenure regimes, seek to ensure the prior informed consent of all affected stakeholders (women and men alike), and offer compensation that local people consider as ‘fair’ and ‘just’ if and when restoration activities result in dispossession of land and livelihoods.

Second, engaging women and men across different social groups in restoration initiatives is important for gaining an understanding of local needs and interests, and to capitalize on the opportunity to learn about local knowledge of ecosystems and resource management institutions (Blay et al. 2007). Due to their socially constructed gender roles, women and men’s environmental knowledge and priorities for restoration often differ (Elias and Carney 2017). Ignoring women in restoration initiatives means overlooking the priorities and knowledge of half of the population. In contrast, publically recognizing women as land managers and ecological knowledge holders can enhance the recognition and social standing they hold within their communities.

Third, many restoration initiatives seek to promote both conservation and local livelihoods. If women are not involved in restoration decision-making processes, their ability to secure new livelihood opportunities through restoration will be curtailed. At the same time, lessons from past experiences suggest that restoration efforts that rely on women’s paid and unpaid contributions without due recognition inadvertently exacerbate women’s work burden and augment gender asymmetries.

Finally, equitable participation in restoration initiatives generates broader local buy-in and enhanced capacities, with improved prospects for both human and socioeconomic development and environmental outcomes (Covelli-Metcalf et al. 2015; Horlings 2015; Lescourret 2015). At the same time, easy win-wins cannot be assumed as restoration efforts that promote gender equality and/or address women’s interests may not always be the most ecologically sustainable option. Hence, harnessing synergies between gender equality and forest restoration requires careful analysis and planning, and empowering local women and men to leverage opportunities and negotiate change at multiple levels (see Mwangi et al. 2016).

Although gender issues are central to restoration, and there exist potential synergies between restoration and gender equality outcomes, gender remains poorly addressed in restoration research and practice (Clewell and Aronson 2013; Broeckhoeven and Cliquet 2015).

Extension services, also called rural advisory services, refer to the different activities which provide the information, guidance and services that farmers and other rural actors need to develop their knowledge, skills and practices and improve their livelihoods (GFRAS 2012). Extension services play a critical role in agricultural development for food and nutrition security and for improving productivity and livelihoods (FAO 2014). Yet, the failure of such services to adequately serve women farmers is widely documented (World Bank, FAO & IFAD, 2009; World Bank, 2012; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011; Manfre et al. 2013). An oft-cited statistic is that women’s low access to productive resources and services such as extension reduces their productivity by 20 to 30 percent compared to men’s productivity (FAO 2011).

The gender gap in relation to extension services has several dimensions. First, although the presence of female extension agents is important for eliciting the participation of women farmers, women only make up 10 to 20 per cent of African extension staff (Manfre et al. 2013). Then, women farmers have much less access than their male counterparts to extension services; the proportion of women who have contact with extension staff is 40 to 90 percent lower than the proportion of men who have this contact (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011). It is also important to recognize and address the double role that extension providers often have as gatekeepers to agricultural innovations and quality planting material by brokering not only knowledge but also access to subsidized farm inputs.

Thus, the effect of the gender gap in extension services also has implications for the unequal access to key resources. In addition, little attention is given to the role that extension services can play in helping women enhance their decision-making ability, improve their social capital, increase their ownership of assets and gain greater control over the use of income from agriculture, thereby support their empowerment. Christoplos (2010) observes that the gender gap in extension services is symptomatic of gender biases in the wider policy environment and societal norms. Overcoming these biases in relation to extension services requires careful attention to the advisory methods and approaches used, to who can access them and under which circumstances, and to the norms and institutions that stand in the way of equitable service provision.

Actual and projected climatic changes will impact differentiated social groups in different ways. For example, climate change is prompting fluxes in forest and tree resources, shifting migration patterns, and changing livelihoods (Djoudi and Brockhaus 2011; Sultana). Gender intersects with other factors of social differentiation such as age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity to influence local women and men’s exposure and capacity to respond to these changes (Carr and Thompson 2014).

The different cultural, domestic and economic roles that women and men play  in their households and communities influence the sets of knowledge they develop about forest and tree resources and the environment (Bee 2016). In turn, this knowledge contributes to their varying adaptive capacities and strategies in the face of a changing natural resource base (Djoudi and Brockhaus 2011). Gender inequalities and norms limiting women’s access to and control of resources, such as land, capital and technical services, can hinder their capacities to navigate the challenges of a changing climate (Brody et al. 2008; Lambrou and Piana 2006; Rodenberg 2009). Furthermore, while both women and men are integral players in natural resource management, men often have greater opportunity than women to participate in decision-making on sustainable development of forest and tree resources.

Importantly, research demonstrates that gender-related vulnerabilities are neither essential to women nor static (IPCC 2014). For instance, Arora-Jonsson (2011) demonstrates how gendered mortality patterns related to natural disasters are often influenced by intersecting social variables such as class and caste and vary greatly between contexts. For instance, in certain instances in India, women’s vulnerability was a function of poverty (homestead in unfavorable location) and gender (women spending more time around the homestead). In other instances, upper-caste women were more vulnerable due to the need to maintain caste-related ideas of female honor even at a time of crisis. Finally, during Hurricane Mitch, men were found to be more vulnerable due to the social and cultural norms which encourage risky behavior (2011).  Djoudi and Brockhaus (2011) find that women in northern Mali are adapting not only to the changing climate, but also to the out-migration of men. However, women’s adaptive capacities were differentiated by restrictive social norms related to class and ethnicity.

Various national as well as local governments are seeking to address climate change in their policymaking and planning in the agricultural and environmental sectors. This is demonstrated by countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), REDD+ schemes, and initiatives to develop adaptation plans and mitigation actions. In this context, it becomes increasingly urgent to develop mechanisms that promote women and men’s equal access to decision-making spaces on climate change related planning, strategies and policies to ensure that their preferences and interests are adequately represented and addressed.

Though empirical case studies on gender and climate change may be limited, critical research on the issues is developing, carried out as part of FTA by partners.

Forest, tree and agroforestry value chains encompass the full range of activities involved in bringing a timber- or non-timber product from a forest or agroforest to the final consumer. Such value chains vary in geographic scope and scale – from harvesting firewood for the local market to the production, processing, transportation and trade of global export goods such as palm oil, timber and shea nuts. Value-adding activities along the value chain include activities such as harvesting, cleaning, transporting, processing, packaging, marketing and distribution, and involve a wide range of actors (Haverhals et. al. 2014).

The  importance of gender in forest, tree and agroforestry value chains has received increasing attention over the last decades (Ingram et al 2016). Gender norms, ideologies and power relations on multiple levels tend to shape value chain dynamics. For example, this could be by stipulating what is socially acceptable ‘male’ and ‘female’ work (including reproductive responsibilities); mediating access to and control over productive assets (Quisumbing et al 2015); and defining who has decision-making power (e.g. Sunderland et al 2014; Ingram et al 2016). While dynamics vary across contexts, gender inequalities shape the nature and extent of women and men’s participation in forest, tree and agroforestry value chains and their accrued benefits. Gender differences are influenced by intersecting social factors such as ethnicity, marital status and age (Ingram et al 2016). But as  ageneral trend, women – relative to men – tend to be confined in less profitable value chains (Ingram et al 2014), occupy less remunerative nodes in a given value chain (such as harvesting and retailing), and run smaller businesses (Ingram et al 2016). Women also tend to be underrepresented in forest management and producer associations (Mai et al, 2011). As multiple forest, tree and agroforestry resources can often be found on the same parcel of land, gender biases in decision-making bodies may result in rules and restrictions being biased towards traditionally male-coded products, such as timber, at the expense of female-coded products, including various non-timber forest products and firewood (see e.g. Agarwal 2001, Mai et al 2011).

As forest, tree and agroforestry value chains become integrated into national and global economies, various political, economic and environmental shifts influencing  the availability and profitability of forest, tree and agroforestry products are shaping the gendered dynamics and distribution of benefits along the chain. These may enhance opportunities for women, such as the growing demand for charcoal in Zambia that has opened up spaces for women to participate in the traditionally male-dominated value chain (Gumbo et al 2013). Women’s increased participation may serve to challenge unequal gender relations by altering perceptions about men and women’s work and enhancing women’s economic empowerment (Barrientos 2001). For this reason, interventions aiming to promote value chains dominated by women producers, such as those based on shea nuts or other non-timber forest products, have become increasingly popular among development agencies (Elias and Arora-Jonsson 2016, Westholm 2017).

Nevertheless, the globalization of FTA value chains introduces gendered inequalities and risks. Ingram et al, (2014) and Turner (2014) note the risk of elite or corporate appropriation of traditionally female products or value chains as their profitability increases. Even in more formalized value chains, such as oil palm and furniture value chains in Indonesia, women are relegated to being ‘shadow workers’ as their unpaid contributions to the production processes are not recognized (Sijapati et al. 2016). Where women’s work is visible, they tend to be confined to low-skilled jobs, have less secure contracts and receive lower wages than their male counterparts (Nansereko 2010, Li 2015, Arwida et al 2017). The casualization of women workers thereby means that in the event of financial shocks, such as the 2008 financial crisis, women workers are often disproportionately affected (Hurst et al 2010).

A wide range of state, non-state and plural institutions at national, regional and global levels have emerged to respond to growing criticism that the expansion of forest, tree and agroforestry products is contributing to the destruction of the environment and infringement of rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. This includes zero deforestation pledges, moratoriums, certification standards, jurisdictional approaches, roundtables and global/regional trade regimes. There has been limited research thus far on whether and how these engage with gender issues, and their implications for the rights and livelihoods of women and men along the forest, tree and agroforestry chains remain unaddressed (Sijapati Basnett et al. 2016, Sexsmith 2017).

Forest, tree and agroforestry research on this topic seeks to understand gendered dynamics of value chains in order to identify opportunities for lifting structural barriers and enhancing opportunities for gender equitable forest, tree and agroforestry value chains.