Making Visible what is currently not Visible: Experiences on generating Evidence based Results on

Integrating Gender Issues in Projects.

Dr. Petra Saghir(AWARD Fellow)

Poverty Gender and Innovation

ILRI, Nairobi, 18 May 2012

IntroductionInstitutional changes for Capacity Building and Partnerships

• integral part of the world’s strategy for agricultural development

• produce the much needed skills to provide leadership, catalyze and facilitate agricultural development process

• constitute a miniature of society and its structural inequalities

• historical, socio-cultural, socioeconomic and structural/institutional categories

• encourage more girls and women to engage in agricultural sciences, research, innovations and technological development

• lead to increased numbers of female and male agricultural professionals

In 2008, less than 25% of agricultural researchers and less than 15% of the leaders of agricultural institutions were women.

AWARD

• < 1 in 4 agricultural researchers is a woman, and <1 in 7 of the leaders of agricultural institutions is a woman

• career development program that strengthens the scientific and leadership skills of African women in agricultural research

• help to remove any ‘glass ceiling’, ‘sticky floors’ and ‘revolving doors’

• contribute more effectively to poverty alleviation and food security

• women are underserved throughout the agricultural value chain.

• current leadership for agricultural research is small in number, almost exclusively male, and on the verge of retirement

• leadership will be all the more effective when women are highly represented in technical competence to generate innovations

AWARD Impact Assessments• 80% experienced a significant increase in their self-awareness and

confidence; 48% received awards and scholarships e.g. Global Conference on women in Agric.

• 83% improved their scientific skills and access to resources =

significant increase in their scientific outputs, on average 2 peer-reviewed journal publications in two years

• 78% felt better equipped to overcome constraints; experienced a growing positive reputation & just under half were promoted, career change

• two-thirds made their work even more responsive to the needs of women farmers

• hundreds of examples of effective solutions for agricultural development like the two you heard here today.

Objectives of Research Attachment• Further capacities strengthening and sustainable

utilization of skills • Networking, partnership, mentoring, innovative

methods & approaches and practical experience

• Contribute to the improvement of the lives of the disadvantaged and enhancing their opportunities

• Transform gender awareness within the academia into gender transformative development to change/challenge orthodoxies

• Analytical skills needed to understand the complexity of gender issues

Activities Profile • (a) CGP project: Integrating Dairy Goat and Root Crop Production for

Increasing Food, Nutrition and Income Security of Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania supported by International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Canadian International Agency for Development (CIDA) in collaboration with Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania (SUA) and University of Alberta, Canada

• (b) IFPRI/ ILRI: Gender and Agriculture Assets Project (GAAP) in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Kenya, Tanzania, India and Uganda in collaboration with IFPRI supported by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

• (c) FORD FOUNDATION Project: Evaluating the Impacts of Livestock and Aquaculture Microcredit and Value Chain Programs on Women’s Empowerment, Eastern Africa –The International Livestock Research Institute supported by Ford Foundation.

• (d)ACIAR Gender-Climate project: Australian Center for International Agric. Research (ACIAR)-Gender and climate Risk consideration for research (crop/livestock) in Africa

CGP TanzaniaIntroduction and Objectives• Domestic livestock and root crops are important

components of the agricultural sector in Tanzania, with goats ranking second to cattle in contribution of livestock.

• Low growth rates of livestock and low milk production among small-scale farmers limit food and nutritional benefits.

• The project seeks to improve food security and human nutrition through an integrated program of dairy goat cross-breeding/cassava and sweet potato production for food and feed.

Qualitative StudyStudy Area• Two districts: Mvomero and Kongwa representing 4 communities -

Wami Luhindo, Kunke, Masinyeti and Ihanda

Methodology• Purposive selection: Communities practiced mixed crop/livestock

systems. total of 12 GDs were conducted involving 224 men and women

Qualitative data: Gender disaggregated and mixed—men and women—Group Discussions

Tools: Ranking, Pairwise ranking, proportion pilling and Venn diagrams.

Data Analysis: Descriptive measures such as percentages, tables, pie, bar charts, proportion pilling, Venn diagram and Verbal quotes

ResultsCommunity wealth and classification• Poor (45%), Average (37%) and Rich (18%)• On average, Male HHs (62%) FHHs (28%) and 10% CHHs• The female & child HHs and HIV HHs were more vulnerable to: i)

poverty, ii) food insecurity iii) having undisciplined children.• 35% of the population is affected by HIV/AIDS and 65% do not know

their status• 10 – 70% of HHs are food insecure

• On & Off farm Livelihoods activities• Rich women produce crops & rich men, average wealth produce

livestock• Casual labour is off farm activity by poor men and women engage in

sale of charcoal and firewood less remunerative• Men makes bricks, do small businesses eg grocery stores & sale of

grains

• Community cohesion/collective responsibilities (Venn Diagram)

Gender issues in livestock/crop productionOwnership, Management and decision making in relation to goats• Men owned all the goats and made related decisions; Single

women or through inheritance• Ownership affected by patriarchal tradition

• Women were by far less likely than men to own not only goats, but also livestock in general

On management: associated with gender• rural–urban migration influence management increases women’s

workload

On decision-making over goats, women have limited control over sale and use of incomes

Crops ownership: depends on market prices and yield • Men own cash crops/crops for cash; women own subsistence or

food crops for home consumption.

Perception of men and women

• Varied Perceptions of women and men• Men perceived value addition resulting from owning dairy goats & attendant

increase in income

• anticipated increase in men’s real income could come about either through men accessing women’s income

• women using their earnings to substitute men’s expenditure on household needs

and children’s education.

• Women perceived change in status quo and increase workload resulting from stall goat management activities.

• Output: Discussion Paper entitled NO: 21 ‘Integrating improved goat breeds with new varieties of sweet potatoes and cassava in the agro-pastoral systems of Tanzania: A gendered analysis’ and Gender Strategy for CGP, Tanzania

http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/16959

Gender and Agriculture Assets Project (GAAP) IFPRI/ILRIEvaluating the Impacts of Agricultural Development Programming on Gender Inequalities, Asset Disparities, and Rural LivelihoodsPurpose• To reduce the gap between men’s and women’s control and ownership

of assets, by evaluating how and how well agricultural development programs build women’s assets

• Three-year project, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Development partners Moz., Kenya&Tanz. Bangladesh, Burkina Faso

and Eastern India, )

Why assets?• Control over and ownership of assets is a critical component to well-

being• Increasing control/ownership of assets help create pathways out of

poverty more than measures that aim to increase incomes or consumption alone

• Different types of assets matter to both men and women

Why look at control of assets?• Households do not pool resources nor share the same

preferences• Who receives resources determines impact of policy• Evidence from many countries that increasing resources

controlled by women improves child health and nutrition, agricultural productivity, income growth– how to target women with development interventions– how to improve participation– what to do to increase the chances that they will benefit from

agricultural development projects

• Deliverable/Output:A report on the Qualitative Gendered Assessment of GAAP / Land O Lakes – Mozambique Smallholder Dairy Development Project (MSDDP)

FORD FoundationIntroduction: Evaluating the impacts of livestock and aquaculture microcredit and value chain programs on women’s empowermentWomen’s right and their economic opportunities projects are rarely conducted

together although they might have a chance of ensuring greater change towards women empowerment

Increasing opportunities for earnings for women does not guarantee empowerment

Making women aware of their rights minus financial resources does not guarantee empowerment

A shift from human rights universal views on women rights that neglect corresponding ability to exercise rights on economic issues

Main Objective: To improve the impacts of livelihood programs on women and their households through the integration of women’s rights into economic development projects

Case study approach: East Africa Dairy Development Project, Juhudi Kilimo, Kenya Women Holding Aquaculture project, KARI Value chains project

Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture (EWAI) & Gender Parity Index

• WEAI captures Women’s empowerment and inclusion level in the agricultural sector e.g. in ownership & control of assets, workload, leisure, leadership quality, decision making, achievement etc.

• The purpose of the index is to understand why

women in developing countries face persistence obstacles and economic constraints despite their contributions to agric growth

Output:Kitale, Eldoret and Malindi to collect data

Weighted Empowerment score

Income DecisionACCESS CREDITACCESS TO PRODUCTION CAP-ITALIncome decision making Productive decision makingEarn More than HH headLeadership IndexSelf assessmentCommunity SupportVoting power

Gender (equality) Parity Index

17 11 4 15 8 1 14 16 10 6 13 12 2 7 5 3 90

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

OVERALL-INDEX Selfranking

Household identification

ACIAR• Australian Center for International Agric. Research (ACIAR)-Gender

and climate Risk consideration for research (crop/livestock) in Africa

• Gender Integration in Climate Change and Crop/Livestock

• Different varying multiple and simultaneous effects on females, males and their households

• Women are change agents and custodians of climate resilience & mitigation

• Workshop (Facilitated) 2nd -5th May 11 countries

• A Framework for Integrating Gender and Climate Change Considerations into Crop-Livestock Research

Why women?

• Media, Activists and Politicians; wrong approaches & methodologies

• Existing ideologies (beliefs/ideas onto which actions are based) socialization = gender identity

• legal and customary rights of formal & informal Institutions rules• Labor overload (production, reproduction)

• Identities determined by gender and socio-economic status.• different entitlements right from birth e.g. land, commercialization, migration &

capital leading to constraints; Unequal terms of marriage

• Society socially exclude and, or unfavorably include (“unequal” terms of social participation) opportunities for advancement. Limit & undermine the capacity to take up opportunities

• male resistance and silencing = vulnerability; no research recognition Affect women agency (= oppression & insubordination)

In reality…………• Women shapes the totality of production, processing, distribution and consumption

• Closing the gender gap in agriculture leads to gains not only for the agriculture sector but for the society as well (FAO, 2011)

• 40-60% of farmers in Sub Saharan Africa are women• Female membership in agricultural marketing cooperatives is generally low despite

their major role in the agriculture sector

• Different impacts of interventions• Treating the HH as a unit decrease the effectiveness of development interventions

• A focus on gender can increase the productivity of agriculture and livestock systems, and improve food security and nutrition

• increase farm yields by 20-30%; increase agricultural output by 2.5-4%, reducing the number of hungry people by 12-17% such gains could reduce the number of hungry people by between 100-150 million

Lesson Learnt• Gender mainstreaming in CRPs• These attempts so far have elicited important lessons that must be used to move forward to

ensure continuity

• A positive attitude created in both the management and few scientists • lack of accountability leaves gender incorporation as an individual initiative rather than

organizational or program commitment

• Generating and utilizing gender disaggregated dataset is crucial to enhance the success of research and development endeavors

• external donor based projects and this has contributed to gender being viewed as a foreign concept

• One/5 time training is not adequate to influence attitudes of researchers and development practitioners; conscious effort

• The fact that most of the people involved are female has given researchers the impression that gender equals women

• mainstreaming gender analysis in agricultural technology development and transfer will not be achieved if:– awareness and sensitization of gender perspectives are not carried out at all levels within the

institution

Challenges

• Donor driven gender agenda • Misconceptions on gender and feminism

• Inadequate understanding and importance of gender mainstreaming among the technical and physical scientists

• Limited dedication of the management body is also a challenge in gender mainstreaming in all the countries

opportunities

• PGI: technical expertise to conduct gender integration research-specialists

• Monitoring, & Evaluation and looking for impact assessment on gender in projects

• Increase awareness for agriculture & rural development project planning

• Gender strategy – Integration into project components/activities– Integration into project implementation approaches– Specific gender activities and gender research– Gender integration in CRPs

Conclusion Non gender integration = Project failure, create backlash and negative outcomes‘Often when we talk about miserable women, we always forget that they are actually married to miserable men and gives birth to miserable children too’!

Acknowledgement• AWARD• ILRI• PGI• Dr. Jemimah Njuki

Asante Sana!