In this paper we examine conditions that underlie vulnerability and resilience possibilities for households and communities that face and respond to climate- and other changes, in nine East and West African countries. We base our analysis on a unique integrated qualitative and quantitative dataset composed of household surveys and village focus group studies carried out across a wide range of environments and agricultural systems. We identify human population growth, commercialization of the economy, and natural resource use policies, in addition to weather, as key drivers of change. We compare the agricultural and livelihood systems of male and female respondents, as well as their productive resources, organization and access to services. Women have less access than men to common property resources, as well as to cash to obtain goods or services. Women control less land than men, the land they control is often of poorer quality, and their tenure is insecure. Women engage in mutual insurance and risk-sharing networks, and benefit from non-agricultural services provided by social support institutions external to the village. Formally registered, public and private external organizations that foster agriculture and livestock production have tremendous anti-women biases, and tend to provide support primarily to men. Policies and strategies are needed to eliminate those prejudices so that men and women increase their resilience and manage well their changing environments

Incremental adaptation may be inadequate to deal with rapid shifts and tipping points for food production under climate change. The concepts of transformative and transformational adaptation have emerged in recent years to address the need for major, non-marginal transitions in sectors, such as agriculture in response to climate change. However, there is less empirical evidence of transformation in practice. Here we use a simple semi-quantitative definition to identify recorded cases of transformational adaptation in response to climate change. A structured search of academic literature found 23 empirical case studies that meet our criteria for transformation of agriculture under climate change: a response to climate risks along with a redistribution of at least a third in the primary factors of production (land, labor, capital) or the outputs and outcomes of production over a time period of 25 years or less. The case studies offer experience-based lessons on managing transformative processes in agriculture at all four stages of the adaptation cycle: understanding goals and objectives, developing a vision and pathway, implementing adaptation actions, and monitoring, evaluating and learning. In general, the case-study processes of transformation have diverged from well-managed, inclusive approaches based on foresight and continual learning. Our review provides little early evidence that transformative adaptation processes in response to climate change have generated more resilient agricultural systems or improvements in governance. Governments and development partners could improve the effectiveness of outcomes through providing more comprehensive and long-term approaches to adaptation planning alongside financial and technical assistance, within a framework that rewards farms as multi-functional systems.