 Gender inequality has a strong role in determining the adaptive capacity that women have to climate change and every year women who are farmers and female-headed households in low and middle income countries are suffering from very large losses, even greater than those that male-headed households are suffering from climatic shocks like heat stress or flooding. This report quantifies some of those losses. In the case of heat stress it means $37 billion of losses per year for female-headed households and for flooding it means $16 billion of losses. It's a lot of money. Climate change is a major challenge for poor people and particularly for women because they can't easily adapt to climate change as men can because they don't have as much access to resources, to assets, to services that would allow them to adapt to the challenges that a changing climate poses. For example, women don't often have as much ownership of land as men. Women may not have access to technology like drought-resistant seeds. In countries where there is irrigation for farming women are much less likely to have access to that irrigation. You can imagine a female farmer who doesn't have water on her plot of land and maybe she also didn't receive new seeds which would have helped her prevent losses from drought. She's working harder. She's working longer. She's doing an extra hour of work a day compared to a male farmer in order to try to adapt to climate change. But the truth is that without the access to those kinds of assets and technologies she just may not be able to keep up with the changing climate. For all of these reasons climate change is having a disproportionate impact on women and female-headed households. If we continue to have heat increases from climate change, so a one-degree Celsius increase in heat, we're going to be losing income of around 34% for women and for female-headed households. And as we know that the climate crisis is not going to be solved anytime soon, unfortunately, we can estimate that there are going to be greater and greater losses for female farmers and for female-headed households in farming areas. If we could close the labor gaps and if we could close the productivity gaps between women and men, we could have a major impact on GDP, increasing it by 1% globally. We could reduce food insecurity for 45 million people. Increasing women's registration and access to land has a lot of benefits on agricultural productivity. It can reduce gender-based violence within the household. It can improve the nutrition of families. In Palau, FAO has been working to strengthen women's resilience to climate change by looking at the tourism value chain and other agri-food system value chains and helping women to be more prepared for the kinds of shocks they might face from climate change. Those kinds of countries are very vulnerable to climate change and women are a very important part of the workforce, so working to make sure that they have the skills and capacities, assets and resources to prepare for the change in climate is really important. We should really be looking at the ways that we can combine financing to address multiple challenges. Climate change and gender inequality, for example, can be put together in a very effective fashion and have a greater impact if we work on both of those objectives at the same time. What's really important is to design investments and to increase the amount of money that's going towards projects which not only address these kind of asset and resource gaps, but also try to transform social norms or empower women so that they have more agency to make decisions for their family because we know that doing that can have really big benefits in terms of household-level incomes, dietary diversity, food security and resilience. Only 6% of bilateral money is trying to have a sort of a focused impact on gender equality and women's empowerment in agri-food systems, so that's certainly not enough.