Gender, Agriculture and Assets Project: A model for research and capacity building
Gender, Agriculture and Assets Project:A model for research & capacity building Nancy Johnson, International Livestock Research Institute on behalf of GAAP team Organized Symposium on “Innovations in methods for analyzing the gender-asset gap in agriculture” IAAE Foz do Iguaçu August 22, 2012
Goals of GAAPWorks with agricultural development projects in SSA and SA to: Generate evidence on the role of assets in projects and the impacts of projects on women’s assets and the gender‐asset gap Build capacity among project implementers and project evaluators to incorporate gender and assets in their work
Outline• Conceptual framework • Methods for evaluation • Methods for capacity building
Why have a conceptual framework? Photo credit: Agnes Quisumbing
Why have a conceptual framework?• To clarify HOW: Gendered asset distribution affects outcomes Outcomes of agricultural programs differ by gender Building assets takes place in a way that is gendered • To guide attention to key processes for evaluation • To provide a basis for comparison and learning across different case studies • To offer an organizing frame for synthesis
Context: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors, etc. Shocks Consumption Livelihood Assets Strategies Full Incomes Well‐being Savings/ Investment Legend: Women Joint Men
Each component is gendered Women’s JOINT Men’s • Women and men have separate assets, activities, consumption, etc. • Households also have some joint assets, activities, consumption, etc. • Shading of each component as a reminder that we need to consider gender—separation and jointness in each • Meinzen‐Dick et al, 2011, Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programs: A Conceptual Framework,” CAPRi Working Paper No. 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/CAPRiWP99
Assets Natural Physical HumanFinancial Social Political
Mapping projects to the frameworkAsset distribution Shocks (eg land, livestock,training, supportto groups) Consumption Livelihood Assets Strategies Full Incomes Well‐being Savings/ Investment Question: Who gets the asset and what implications for that have for LS, well being and the gender-asset gap?
Mapping projects to the framework Promotion of new/ improved Shocks livelihoods strategies (technologies, businesses) Consumption Livelihood Assets Strategies Full Incomes Well‐being Savings/ Investment Questions: What assets are required to adopt? How doesadoption affect outcomes, well being and the G-A gap?
Evaluation approach: Mixed methodsAll projects had quantitative baseline surveys, but variables not gender disaggregated GAAP complemented existing surveys with new modules and/or rounds of data collection Few projects planned qualitative analysis as part of their evaluations GAAP funded qualitative work on the meaning and importance of assets to men and women, and the links between assets, project activities, and outcomes
Modifications to quant surveysNew or revised modules: Full household roster (including cows in one case!) Gender disaggregation in:• Assets (current and retrospective)• Labor• Control over key inputs, outputs, income Didn’t always ask men and women http://gaap.ifpri.info
Qualitative• Mainly focus group discussions• Depending on dates, purpose was to inform quantitative and explore project impacts and evaluation findings
Own‐project funded With GAAP support Name of project/ Intervention and Compari Baseline and other quant Qual Qual work Endline country definition of son surveys treatment group group BRAC: Challenging Grants of RCT Baseline: May‐Dec 2007 ‐ Feb‐Jun Quant add‐on Frontiers of Poverty livestock, land, (26,977 households sampled); 2011 survey with Reduction‐Targeting or funds, 1st follow‐up: Jul‐Dec 2009; gender/assets Ultra Poor training; 2nd follow‐up: Mar‐Jul 2011 focus: Jan‐Apr (Bangladesh) 2012 CARE‐BD: Organizes/ PSM Quant including sex‐ Jan 2011 Sept 2011 Endline planned Strengthening Dairy trains dairy disaggregated asset module: for Sep‐Oct 2012 Value Chain farmer groups, Baseline in 2008 (1,500 Nov‐Dec group leaders, (Bangladesh) households sampled) 2012 milk collectors, and livestock health workers LOL: Mozambique Transfer of dairy Early v Baseline 2009 and endline in Apr‐May Midline conductedDairy Production cows; training late 2012 (~650 hh) and endline 2011 2011 recipient 2012 HKI: Homestead Training through: RCT Baseline in 2010 Operations Gender‐assets Food Production (1) farmers 2011; Social network census, research modules in endline(Burkina Faso) groups; or (2) Operations research 2012 2012 grandmothers
Own‐project funded With GAAP support Name of Intervention and Comparison Quant Qual Qual Endline project/country treatment group group HPlus: Reaching Providing vines, extension Randomized Baseline 2007 Qual work Social End User program messages, and nutrition control trial Endline 2009 2011 network of Orange Sweet messages to farmers Social network survey survey (add Potato (Uganda) groups (intense/less 2011 on) intense) KS: Treadle pumps Market driven Comparison Baseline June‐Nov May 2011. (Tanzania, Kenya) intervention, treadle of early vs 2010, 6 month follow pumps for micro‐irrigation late buyers up for anthro Jan‐Feb 2011 in Kenya only. (~615 hhlds /cohort ) Cereal Systems in Resource‐conserving Nearby Baseline in 2010 (~350) Qual work in Midline in South Asia (CSISA technologies provided in villages, non‐ 2011 2012 (India) CSISA hubs adopter households (likely 2‐ stage regression) Landesa (India) Regularization of land PSM (likely) Baseline between June August‐Sept Midline titles 2010‐July 2011. 2012 (funded by Microplots (Odisha), Baseline in WB is GAAP) will purchase and allocation of ‘rolling’ meaning after take place in land (WB) title but before move Sept‐Oct (T=803, C = 570), 2012 Baseline in Odisha, T = 551, C = 789.
Some emerging findings• Jointness of ownership and control is very nuanced and very important • Project investments in women’s human and social capital may have direct and indirect impacts • Need to involve men in projects that target resources to women • Many agricultural development projects increase women’s workload
Experience of working with development projects• Generally positive, and not related to direction of impacts • Some documented uptake of methods and lessons in new projects, by implementers and evaluation partners • Commissioning an evaluation of the impact of capacity building impacts of GAAP (ALINe) • Will produce a “Practitioners guide” that will update Quisumbing and McClafferty, 2006