Property and citizenship are in many ways what define us, and they interact in fascinating ways.

Among all the countries receiving agriculture and nutrition assistance through the U.S. government’s Feed the Future initiative, Bangladesh receives the third most, at approximately $50 million a year ($55 million has been requested for 2017). Yet Bangladesh’s population is larger than that of the two countries ahead of it, Tanzania and Ethiopia, combined.

With the Sustainable Development Goals nearing their one-year anniversary, the global community continues to strive toward eradicating poverty by 2030. In order to achieve this ambitious target, many international development practitioners are embracing a more holistic approach to development, combining traditionally single-sector programming, like health or environment work, into more comprehensive efforts. But such integrated development is sometimes easier said than done.

An increasing number of conservation and health activists are beginning to understand the value of an integrated approach to development. Without addressing the needs of people, conservation measures will not be very effective, and conversely, without conservation, people lose vital natural resources and suffer consequences to their health.

Although separated by a thousand miles, the women of the Malaysian state of Sarawak and the Filipino island of Mindoro are united by a major struggle: climate change. As rainfall patterns grow increasingly unpredictable, natural disasters become more frequent, and drought ravages once-arable land, women are on the frontlines in both communities.

Women make up between 40 to 50 percent of the artisanal mining workforce in Africa compared to a world average of 30 percent, says Southern Voices Network Scholar Maame Esi Eshun in an interview with Wilson Center NOW. But despite the number of women in the sector, they are often relegated to the periphery when it comes to decision-making and leadership, undermining peacebuilding efforts in these areas.

More often than not in the discourse around gender and climate change, the word “gender” is used primarily to refer to women. There is no disputing that women are acutely vulnerable to the effects of climate change in ways that are different than men and sometimes hidden. However, this interchangeable use of words neglects other dimensions of gender, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. As a result, we are missing important ways gender impacts people’s experiences with climate change.

The once-every-three-years Women Deliver conference has become a major coalescing force for various global health and development efforts aimed at women and girls. “We operate at a global level, influencing the agenda” by focusing on the “four Cs”: convening, communicating, capacity-building, and catalyzing, said Susan Papp, director of policy and advocacy for Women Deliver. [Video Below]