Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Sex-disaggregated data for agricultural development: What works; What doesn’t
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Sex-disaggregated data for agricultural development: What works; What doesn’t

  • 433 views
Published

Presented by Patti Kristjanson, Senior Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, US.

Presented by Patti Kristjanson, Senior Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, US.

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
433
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • This talk will summarize some approaches and key findings of CGIAR gender-related research and lessons regarding how well these approaches are addressing tough questions relating to how best to achieve more equitable agricultural development and improve food security.
  • Well, in fact, we already are - the new knowledge, technologies, practices, institutions and policies developed by the CGIAR and partners change the social and economic returns to key productive resources for agriculture. These changes in the returns to productive resources alter the balance of power in gender relations causing change in the ways men and women control these resources and how they benefit from their use. Shifts in control over resources and their benefits contribute to and interact with changes in the accepted gender norms, rules and customs that regulate cooperation, conflict and the balance of power among men and women in farm households, communities and other institutions. So lets embrace it, and find opportunities for doing it even better.
  • e.g. Luo households in western Kenya and belief that women shouldn’t plant trees, but they are now (type of seedlings made available, and joint trainings with men and women can make a big difference)
    e.g.2 TIST in central Kenya and elsewhere - women’s empowerment with carbon payments via cellphone (M-Pesa) and rules on rotating leadership of groups, plus monitoring of trees that also recognizes their hard work
  • We need to understand the differences in the needs and preferences and assets (financial, human capital, etc) – of men, women and youths – that facilitate or impede their adoption of new technologies & practices. e.g. we are finding that women’s lack of mobility constrains them from going to meetings or visiting other places to learn about agricultural practices/options
  • It is these new practices (e.g. improved soil, water, agroforestry, crop, livestock management) that will make them more resilient to all kinds of changes, including a changing climate.
    For example, in looking at women’s vs men’s CSA practices, we have learned that women are less aware of various CSA practices than are men, but when they are aware, they are just as likely to adopt them. And when women have more decision-making power, they are more likely to be doing things like water harvesting, composting, conservation agriculture, etc.
  • Vulnerable groups and women have increased access to, and control over: productive assets and inputs, information, food and markets
    And, strengthened participation in decision-making processes
    We’ll come back to how to measure this…
  • But first – how are we going to achieve such outcomes??
    Need to embrace the key “Linking Knowledge with Action” Lessons and Principles:
    Strategic partnerships and inclusive engagement processes
    Joint learning and co-design of solutions
    Co-developing research questions and approaches with farmers
    Gender transformative approaches
    Innovative communication for scaling out (open access!!!)
    Nested impact pathway development with partners and M&E for tracking and achieving joint outcomes
  • With a rigorous research component – solid sampling frame, measuring social, economic and environmental benefits, costs and impacts
  • The idea behind this approach is to involve farmers massively in evaluating varieties as citizen scientists. Each farmer grows a combination of three varieties drawn from a broader set of ten. The farmer then ranks them according to different characteristics such as early vigour, yield, and grain quality. The idea is to make things as easy as possible for the farmers, and then we, the researchers, use some nifty statistics methods to combine the rankings and share the results with the farmers. With this information, farmers can then identify the best varieties for their conditions and preferences. Farmers become citizen crop scientists, actively contributing to science with their time, effort and expertise. In India, 800 farmers are now testing wheat varieties as citizen scientists (Source: Van Etten, Bioversity, CCAFS blog).
  • And since we can’t do everything, what is the minimum reasonable effort that should be promoted/supported?
  • And, asking men and women about their individual roles and responsibilities.
    common mistakes - eg just female headed..
    assuming one source of income…..who controls it for each
  • The purpose of collecting sex-disaggregated data is to provide a more complete understanding of agricultural production and rural livelihoods in order to develop better policies and programs. We can do this in different ways using various qual and quant approaches (at intrahh, hh and village levels) that have been developed, e.g. CCAFS baselines
  • In other words, women need more info about options and will indeed adopt new practices, but interventions supporting cultural/gender norms change (e.g. enhancing women's participation in decisions; empowering women) is still very much needed.
  • Control over resources is a central concept for the measurement of empowerment: control requires participation in decision-making; it depends on the balance of power among the parties to key resource-management decisions; and it is governed by social norms as well as formal institutional policies, procedures and the laws of a society. Control over a resource is distinct from access or rights to a resource which may confer the potential for control but do not indicate whether the producer or group is exercising access or rights to act in decisions about resource-allocation and use for farming and NRM.
  • Decision-making refers to decisions by individuals about their management of agriculture and natural resources and related life choices (e.g. whether or not to leave agriculture) It also refers to decision-making within households about farming and NRM, involving negotiation and exchange among household members. As well, decision-making refers to collective decisions that may be made in made in informal groups, formal organizations such as farm cooperatives or political bodies at various scales from local to national.
    Labor: This indicator should show whether women’s decision-making over their own labor has increased, decreased, or remained constant, and whether men’s decision-making over women’s labor has increased, decreased or remained constant: it refers to the degree of participation of women compared to men in decisions over how women’s own labor is used, when it is used, and on what activities.
    Income: This indicator should show whether women’s decision-making over income they generate has increased, decreased, or remained constant, and whether men’s decision-making over income women generate has increased, decreased or remained constant: it refers to the degree of participation of women compared to men in decisions on how income women generate from farming or NRM it is used and on what purchases; whether the decisions available to men as compared to women over woman-generated income have expanded, reduced or remained static over the previous five years.
    This indicator should show whether men and women have the same opportunities to participate in group decisions: it should measure the degree of participation of women compared to men in decisions made in important groups and the extent to which their voice is valued when participating; whether the type of collective decision available to either men or women have expanded, reduced or remained static over the previous five years
    Use example from our work – decisions re: ag practices that women are adopting vs. men
    The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agricultural sector and comprises two subindexes. The first assesses empowerment of women in five domains, including (1) decisions about agricultural production, (2) access to and decisionmaking power about productive resources, (3) control of use of income, (4) leadership in the community, and (5) time allocation. The second subindex measures the percentage of women whose achievements are at least as high as men in their households and, for women lacking parity, the relative empowerment gap with respect to the male in their household.
  • “Male-headed” households generally include all households in which women are married to men while “female-headed” households are usually those households lacking adult men. Female-headed households are often more labor and resource constrained than male-headed households, but these disparities cannot necessarily be attributed to the sex of the household head. Unless a survey asks questions about individuals within a household, we’ll miss important data on women living in male-headed households – the majority of the world’s women.
  • The CGIAR Gender Network and PIM will issue a paper on Recommended Minimum Standards for Gender Analysis and Sex-Disaggregated Data Collection (forthcoming in 2014)
    Various scales and indices already exist to measure gender equality attitudes; these have been developed in the field of health and in surveys such as CARE’s Pathways baseline.
    This research can look at:
    Actual levels of gender-differentiated control over key productive resources for agriculture
    Participation in decisions
    Factors that change men’s and women’s control over resources and participation in decisions
    Changes in perceptions of appropriate gender roles and relations of relevant actors, including institutions.
    Effects of agricultural research and development interventions on men’s and women’s control and participation.
    How changes in control of resources affect the outcome of household decisions, particularly the adoption and sustained use of new technologies and management practices.
  • Mediae is the private sector firm producing Shamba Shape-Up, the farm reality show in East Africa that transforms farms and teaches farmers about new practices that will enhance their productivity (and environments) and incomes as well as making them more resilient to a changing climate. CCAFS has developed guidelines for developing impact pathways with partners.
  • Key definitions
    Adaptive capacity:
    The combination of the strengths, attributes, and resources available to an individual, community,
    society, or organization that can be used to prepare for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, moderate harm,
    or exploit beneficial opportunities. Also defined as the ability of systems, institutions, and individuals to adjust to potential
    damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences.
    Adaptation to climate change:
    In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects,
    which seeks to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual
    climate and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate.
    Capabilities:
    A person’s opportunity and ability to generate valuable outcomes.
    Gendered impacts and opportunities:
    Differences in experienced impacts and possible responses due to distinct social and
    cultural roles imposed on men and women, always in combination with other dimensions of privilege and marginalization
    (age, class, caste, race, ethnicity, [dis]ability).
    Resilience:
    The ability of a social, ecological, or socio-ecological system and its components to anticipate, reduce,
    accommodate, or recover from the effects of a disturbance in a timely and efficient manner, including the human ability
    to learn from mistakes and be forward-looking in thinking and action, as well as the ability of ecosystems to preserve
    and restore their functions. It is useful to distinguish between ‘engineering’ or restorative resilience and ‘ecological’ or
    transformative resilience (bounce back and bounce forward).
    Uncertainty:
    A state of incomplete knowledge that can result from a lack of information or from disagreement about what is
    known or even knowable. Uncertainty may have many sources, from imprecision in data to ambiguously defined concepts
    or terminology, or uncertain projections of human behaviour. Uncertainty may also be inherent in the biophysical properties
    of a system, such as the climate system. Uncertainty can, therefore, be represented by quantitative measures (e.g., a
    probability density function) or by qualitative statements (e.g., reflecting the judgment of a team of experts).
    Vulnerability:
    The propensity (natural tendency) or predisposition (structurally-driven tendency or likelihood) to be harmed.
    Source: ICIMOD Working Paper 2014/3.

Transcript

  • 1. Sex-disaggregated data for agricultural development: What works; What doesn’t Patti Kristjanson Senior Scientist, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) BMGF, Seattle, Aug 20, 2014
  • 2. Why do agricultural research and development specialists have to take on gender issues? Photo: www.sandbox.maumbile.com
  • 3. The gender gap Because… We are not going to see the bulk of the world’s food producers & consumers – smallholders – improve their wellbeing and adapt to all kinds of changes, with climate change on top them all – unless we close the ‘gender gap’ – in access to, and control over, knowledge, resources, and assets.
  • 4. …and also contribute to changing gender cultures and norms? Source: IITA Youth Agripreneurs
  • 5. Photo: L. Onyango See: www.tist.org Photo: N. Palmer
  • 6. Challenge: Understanding the differences in the needs, preferences and assets (financial, human capital, etc) – of men, women and youths – that facilitate or impede their adoption of new technologies & practices Photo: Arame Tall, CCAFS e.g. women’s relative lack of mobility
  • 7. Women are less aware of various ag practices than are men, but when they are aware, they are just as likely to adopt them When women have more decision-making power, they are more likely to be doing things like water harvesting, composting, conservation agriculture, etc. Photos: N. Palmer, CIAT; V. Atakos, S. Macmillan, ILRI; CCAFS
  • 8. Gender outcomes we seek Vulnerable groups and women have increased access to, and control over: productive assets and inputs, information, food and markets And, strengthened participation in decision-making processes Photo: CCAFS Photo: Reboot
  • 9. Achieving these outcomes: How we do the research matters – a lot! The critical K2A ‘pillars’: •Strategic partnerships & inclusive engagement processes •Co-learning; capacity strengthening, co-design and co-production of solutions •Innovative communications for scaling out Kristjanson et al, 2009. Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 9(13):5047-5052. Photo: N. Palmer
  • 10. Examples of innovative approaches for inclusive scaling out Farm reality TV show targeting and informing East Africa women, men & youth on accessible agricultural practices Challenge: Funding a rigorous research component, with a solid sampling frame, measuring social, economic and environmental benefits, costs and impacts www.shambashapeup.com Photo: Mediae
  • 11. Examples of innovative approaches for inclusive scaling out, cont’d • Testing new large-scale, inclusive crowdsourcing and citizen science approaches (e.g. women and men rank different characteristics of various crop varieties) • Mobile-phone based female and youth-targeted climate and agricultural information services • Participatory farmer-led videos sharing perceptions, knowledge and adaptation strategies Photo: CCAFS For more information, see: ccafs.cgiar.org/blog Photo: ILRI
  • 12. How will we know if a project or program is making progress towards achieving gender outcomes? What are some good indicators of progress towards these outcomes (changes in behavior), what data do we have to collect, and what tools/approaches will get us there? Photo: CCAFS
  • 13. Sex-disaggregated data • Data that are collected and analysed separately on males and females • Involves asking the “who” questions in an agricultural household survey: ‘who provides labor, who makes the decisions, who owns and controls the land and other resources’? • And, asking men and women about their individual roles and responsibilities Photo: ILRI Doss, C. 2013. Data needs for gender analysis in agriculture. IFPRI EPTD Discussion Paper 1261.
  • 14. Why collect it? • Both men and women are involved in agricultural production, so it’s necessary to understand both of their roles and responsibilities and how these may change in the context of new policies, markets, and technologies. Photo: IFPRI
  • 15. Some CGIAR research findings on gender and agricultural development • Agricultural roles of men and women, young and old, poor vs. less poor differ; they are pursuing different types of agricultural adaptation strategies • Studies in Uganda, Ghana, Kenya & Bangladesh suggest women have less secure land tenure & less decision-making power in agricultural production decisions than men Kyazze et al. (2012) ‘Using a gender lens to explore farmers’ adaptation options in the face of a changing climate: Results of a pilot study in Uganda’. CCAFS Working Paper No. 26 Chaudhury et al. (2012). ‘Participatory gender-sensitive approaches for addressing key climate change-related research issues: evidence from Bangladesh, Ghana, and Uganda’. CCAFS Working Paper 19
  • 16. CG Research findings, cont’d • Women are less likely to receive information than men about new agricultural practices, but when they do, they are just as likely to adopt them – particularly resource-conserving and food security-enhancing practices (e.g. no till, cover cropping, efficient fertilizer use, agroforestry) • Food insecure households are less likely to adopt new practices that can make them more resilient Meinzen-Dick et al. ‘Institutions and Gender in the Adoption of Climate-Smart Practices’. CCAFS WP, forthcoming. Kristjanson et al. 2012. Food Security 4, 381-397. http://www.springerlink.com/content/1876-4517/ Photo: N. Palmer
  • 17. Questions we are now addressing with gender-disaggregated data • What influences which adaptation strategies are undertaken in different places? How do they differ for men and women? • How are these influenced by environmental conditions, norms, decision-making, enabling environment (land health measures, land tenure, information sources)? Photo: ILRI
  • 18. Gender outcome indicators Women’s control over resources – to compare men’s and women’s control over how land, livestock, water, forests, etc - and the income from sales of crop, livestock or forest products - is used How to measure? •Inserting specific questions into existing surveys (e.g. LSMS) – BMGF supported WB work on this with One Campaign (Leveling the Field) •IFPRI/USAID’s Women’s empowerment in agriculture index (WEAI) has a domain on ownership and control over resources •CCAFS intra-hh gender-CC survey looks at plot and livestock ownership and income Source: CGIAR gender network
  • 19. Gender outcome indicators Women’s Participation in Decision Making •a greater degree of participation in decisions relating to women’s & their hh’s well-being •an expansion of the range of decisions and available choices in which women (and their families and communities) can participate How to measure? – Need indicators of decisions over own labor, own income, and decisions made in groups – e.g WEAI; CCAFS tools look at ag production decisions Source: CGIAR gender network
  • 20. What doesn’t work • Ignoring it (i.e. collecting sex-disaggregated data) • Comparing female-headed and male-headed households - it misses important data on women • Assuming one source of hh income, or that women have control over income arising from their ag activities & efforts • Purely extractive data collection approaches do not empower women; social learning approaches can Photo: ILRI Shaw A, Kristjanson P. 2014. A Catalyst toward Sustainability? Exploring Social Learning and Social Differentiation Approaches with the Agricultural Poor. Sustainability 6(5): 2685-2717. Deere CD, Alvarado GE, Twyman J. 2012. Gender Inequality in Asset Ownership in Latin America: Female Owners vs Household Heads. Development and Change 43(2): 505–530.
  • 21. What works? What can/should be done at a project or program-level? Strategic gender research at a range of scales: •using complementary quantitative and qualitative methods – new ones have taken a ‘module’ approach; key questions come first!! •Purely extractive/diagnostic research won’t empower women •Need to consider time, expense; no ‘one size fits all’ •Developing at theory of change/impact pathway with key partners is critical - appropriate indicators ‘fall out’ at different levels of the impact pathway
  • 22. Innovative Communications Approach Gender Impact Pathway Example Theory of Change: We must target women to have impact Outcome: Farmers (men and women) are adapting, public and private sectors are supporting e.g. Outcome to Impact Indicator: net soil fertility enhanced (male and female plots) Indicators of progress towards outcome: •no. of women reached with CSA info with ShambaShapeUp (SSU) •no. and reach of local partners (NGOs – e.g. GROOTS, CARE, IFAD projects) that target and work closely with women •% of farmers learning something new from SSU per season •% of farmers changing at least one practice per season •% increase in CSA practices adopted per SSU season (compared with last season)
  • 23. Agriculture, Food Security Gender-disaggregated Survey Resources CCAFS Questionnaires and Data freely available: CCAFS hh and village baselines, intra-hh gender survey, farm characterization (ImpactLite) surveys: http://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/CCAFSbaseline Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index: http://www.ifpri.org/book- 9075/ourwork/program/weai-resource-center Guide to gender analysis in Agroforestry: http://www.icraf.org/newsroom/highlights/new-guide-gender-analysis-agroforestry Gender and Assets project: http://gaap.ifpri.info/ Photo: World Bank
  • 24. New gender-CC research tools, papers, & briefs: ccafs.cgiar.org/gender Join the Gender, Agriculture and Climate Change Research Network: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostRecent=&gid=6657402
  • 25. Additional References • Shaw A, Kristjanson P. 2014. A Catalyst toward Sustainability? Exploring Social Learning and Social Differentiation Approaches with the Agricultural Poor. Sustainability 6(5): 2685-2717. LDOI:10.3390/su6052685 Open Access. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/5/2685 • Wood S A, Jina A S, Jain M, Kristjanson P, DeFries R. 2014. Smallholder farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across multiple regions. Global Environmental Change 25: 163-172. Open Access. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.011 • Vervoort JM, Thornton PK, Kristjanson P, Förch W, Ericksen PJ, Kok K, Ingram JSI, Herrero M, Palazzo A, Helfgott AES, Wilkinson A, Havlik P. 2014. Challenges to scenario-guided adaptive action on food security under climate change. Global Environmental Change. Open Access. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014000387 • Kristjanson P, Harvey B, Van Epp M, Thornton PK. 2014. Social learning and sustainable development. Nature Climate Change. Vol 4. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/34283
  • 26. Thank you! And thanks for inputs from the CGIAR gender network, IFPRI, ILRI, CIAT, ICRAF, FAO, CARE, WeEffect, Mediae, PROLINNOVA and many other collaborators …… Photo: World Development Movement