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&apos;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.
Sex-disaggregated data for agricultural development: What works; What doesn’t
Sex-disaggregated data for
What works; What doesn’t
Senior Scientist, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
BMGF, Seattle, Aug 20, 2014
Why do agricultural research and
development specialists have to take
on gender issues?
The gender gap
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
…and also contribute to changing
gender cultures and norms?
Source: IITA Youth Agripreneurs
Photo: L. Onyango
Photo: N. Palmer
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
relative lack of
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
conservation agriculture, etc.
Photos: N. Palmer, CIAT; V. Atakos, S. Macmillan, ILRI; CCAFS
Gender outcomes we seek
Vulnerable groups and
women have increased
access to, and control over:
productive assets and
food and markets
Achieving these outcomes: How we do
the research matters – a lot!
The critical K2A ‘pillars’:
•Strategic partnerships & inclusive engagement
•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
Examples of innovative approaches for
inclusive scaling out
Farm reality TV show targeting and informing East
Africa women, men & youth on accessible agricultural
Challenge: Funding a
component, with a solid
sampling frame, measuring
social, economic and
costs and impacts
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
For more information, see: ccafs.cgiar.org/blog
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
• 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
Doss, C. 2013. Data needs for gender analysis in agriculture. IFPRI EPTD Discussion
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,
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
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,
Kristjanson et al. 2012. Food Security 4, 381-397.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1876-4517/ Photo: N. Palmer
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
enabling environment (land
health measures, land tenure,
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 -
How to measure?
•Inserting specific questions into existing surveys (e.g. LSMS) –
BMGF supported WB work on this with One Campaign (Leveling
•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
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
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
What doesn’t work
• Ignoring it (i.e. collecting sex-disaggregated
• 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
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.
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
•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
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
Agriculture, Food Security Gender-disaggregated
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-
Guide to gender analysis in Agroforestry:
Gender and Assets project:
Photo: World Bank
New gender-CC research tools, papers, & briefs: ccafs.cgiar.org/gender
Join the Gender, Agriculture and Climate Change Research Network:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Kristjanson P, Harvey B, Van Epp M, Thornton PK. 2014. Social learning and
sustainable development. Nature Climate Change. Vol 4.
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