IFPRI Policy Seminar "Beyond Gender Myths Closing the Knowledge Gap in Agriculture and Food Security"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

IFPRI Policy Seminar "Beyond Gender Myths Closing the Knowledge Gap in Agriculture and Food Security"

  • 1,065 views
Uploaded on

IFPRI Policy Seminar "Beyond Gender Myths Closing the Knowledge Gap in Agriculture and Food Security" Presentation by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI and Agnes Quisumbing, Senior......

IFPRI Policy Seminar "Beyond Gender Myths Closing the Knowledge Gap in Agriculture and Food Security" Presentation by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI and Agnes Quisumbing, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI at IFPRI on 22 November 2013.

More in: Education , Technology
  • 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
1,065
On Slideshare
1,065
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
14
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 presentation will focus on gender gaps in assets—first briefly presenting the evidence on nonland assets, and then presenting new work on debunking myths about women’s and men’s landownership
  • Review commissioned for SOFA 2010-2011: focuses strictly on empirical household or plot-level dataSufficient sample sizes, attention to measurement, econometric evaluation techniques.Recent papers from 1999 to 2009.New work decomposing the productivity gap being done at the World Bank using the LSMS-ISA—will let WB colleagues who are around talk about thatAttempt to make contrasts and comparisons between regions to identify how women farmers face similar or different constraints (Asia, SSA, Middle East and Latin/South America).
  • Attempt to debunk myths by looking at existing databases and nationally representative data sets: this is the focus of my presentation today
  • 22.2 on average across 9 countries
  • Status? Which is also different from empowerment
  • Not clear what the story is here?
  • Will you talk about the “dark side” of social capital as well? (Gangs? Exclusion?) What do you do for the ultra-poor or those who are deemed too poor to participate in group-based efforts? Might need different approaches (BRAC TUP is one example).

Transcript

  • 1. The Gender Asset Gap: Pieces of the puzzle Agnes Quisumbing Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division International Food Policy Research Institute IFPRI Policy Seminar, November 22, 2013 Washington DC
  • 2. What we know • What we learned from SOFA 2010-2011: – Gender gaps in land, assets, nonland inputs, and technologies have a high opportunity cost in terms of gains in yields, production, and potentially, reduction in hunger • We know gender gaps exist, and there are gains to closing those gaps • But we do not know: – The extent of the gender gap across resources (myths prevail) – The extent of the gains in closing the gap – Most effective ways to close the gap (although there is evidence from some impact evaluations)
  • 3. Nonland inputs: Assets and technology Photo credit: Ruth Meinzen-Dick, IFPRI Photo credit: Maria Theresa Castro, IRRI
  • 4. Number of studies reviewed Gender gaps in nonland assets and technology Source: Peterman, Behrman and Quisumbing, 2010. IFPRI Discussion Paper 975. (SOFA background paper)
  • 5. Land Photo credit: Supriya Chatterjee, Landesa
  • 6. Sound bites -- Oxfam, Action Aid, etc. -- Variations found in UN Women, Bread for the world and others citing FAO gender land rights database -- Infographic from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • 7. Does the single statistic contain some element of truth? • Problematic because: 1. Masks regional and within country variations 2. No clear attention to how ‘women’s land ownership’ is defined – and how this relates to bundles of rights 3. Treatment of joint ownership? 4. No clear comparison group (assumed to be men in the same context?) 5. Based on limited data  All these factors handicap policy recommendations, ultimately hurting efforts towards understanding gender-inequalities in land rights.
  • 8. Gender Inequalities in Ownership and Control of Land in Africa: Myth and Reality (Doss, Kovarik, Peterman, Quisumbing, van den Bold 2013) 1. Explores conceptual and methodological issues in estimating “women’s land ownership.” 2. Reviews existing evidence from large-scale studies in Africa (data collected post 2002). 3. Provides new data-based estimates on women’s land ownership in Africa:    Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gender and land rights database Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Living Standard Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). 4. Discusses policy, advocacy and research implications of findings.
  • 9. FAO Gender and land database • Primarily from agricultural censuses • Landholder is defined as a “…person who makes major decisions regarding resource use and exercises management control over the agricultural holding operation. The holder has technical and economic responsibility for the holding and may undertake all responsibilities directly, or delegate responsibilities related to day-to-day work management to a hired manager.” (FAO, 2007) • Therefore, a landholder is not necessarily a land owner • 9 countries, N = 44,450 in Cape Verde - 15,732,850 in Nigeria
  • 10. FAO Gender and land database (2002 – 2013) Percentage of landholders who are women 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Cape Verde (2004) Botswana (2004) Comoros (2004) Tanzania Ethiopia Madagascar Nigeria (2007) Gambia Mali (2004– (2007–2008) (2001–2002) (2004–2005) (2001–2002) 2005) Country (year)
  • 11. Demographic and Health Surveys • Starting in 2009, select DHS started collecting information on individual land ownership:  Household level: “Does any member of this household own agricultural land?”  Individual level: “Do you own any land either alone or jointly with someone else?” Response options: no ownership, sole ownership, joint ownership, or both sole and joint ownership. • 10 countries
  • 12. DHS – sole + joint ownership (2009 – 2013) Percentage of households owning any agricultural land 100 90 Women owning any land (sole or joint) 86 81 80 80 Percentage owning land Men owning any land (sole or joint) 79 77 73 70 72 64 60 60 50 54 54 55 54 63 54 53 50 48 47 39 40 32 36 36 38 34 30 28 30 20 11 10 * * 0 Burundi (2010) Rwanda (2010) Malawi (2010) Burkina Faso (2010) Tanzania (2010) Ethiopia (2011) Uganda (2011) Country (year) Zimbabwe (2010-11) Lesotho (2009) Senegal (201011) * means that data is not available
  • 13. DHS – sole ownership (2009 – 2013) Percentage of households owning any agricultural land Women owning any land (sole only) Men owning any land (sole only) 100 90 86 81 80 79 80 77 73 72 70 63 Percentage owning land 60 53 50 50 47 46 43 40 30 25 20 11 28 23 22 13 12 12 8 10 * 14 22 11 7 9 5 * 0 Burundi (2010) Rwanda (2010) Malawi (2010) Burkina Faso (2010) Tanzania (2010) Ethiopia (2011) Uganda Zimbabwe Lesotho Senegal (2011) (2010-11) (2009) (2010-11)
  • 14. LSMS-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture • Joint effort led by the World Bank in 7 African countries starting in 2008 (Mali still in progress). • Detailed plot level characteristics including, ownership, documentation, area (GPS) measures and value (self reported) measures. • Among total land area owned or accessed by households, women own a high of 31% in Malawi, followed by Uganda (16 %), Tanzania (15 %), Nigeria (9%) and Niger (8 %). • Comparatively, men solely own on average 21.8 times as much absolute land area in comparison with women in Nigeria, and between 1.1 to 6.9 times as much land as women solely own in the other countries.
  • 15. LSMS-ISA Uganda: Distribution of Land Area Accessed, 11% Owned, undo Joint cumented, 0 ownership, document ed, 10% Women's ownership, undocum ented, 13% Women's ownership, document ed, 3% Men's ownership, undocum ented, 24% Joint ownership, undocum ented, 32% Men's ownership, document ed, 6%
  • 16. LSMS-ISA (area measures) Legend Malawi Ethiopia Women's ownership, undocumented Owned, undocum ented, 0 Women's ownership, documented Men's ownership, undocumented 6% 16% 22% 0.6% Men's ownership, documented 19% Joint ownership, undocumented 31% Joint ownership, documented 17% 13% Accessed 41% 0.2% 32% Owned, undocumented (men and women) 0.4% Nigeria* 3% Owned, u ndocume nted, 0 5% Tanzania Owned, un documente d, 0 8% Niger Uganda 14% 11% 1% 22% Owned, u ndocumen ted, 0 15% 7% 0.4% 2.9% 13% 3% 10% 22% 7% 24% 31% 36% 68% 6% 5% *In Nigeria “ownership is defined as the right to sell or use as collateral” 49% 32% 5%
  • 17. Which countries have data?
  • 18. Conclusions and discussion points • Isolated statistics cannot be generalized and do not present an accurate picture of women’s landownership worldwide • But most consistent message is: women are disadvantaged and often the gender gap is large. • In future analysis it is crucial to:  Define definitions and indicators used  Improve methodology, data collection and analysis efforts  Recognize that country-specific statistics are the most relevant to drive policy and advocacy efforts in a given context and focus should be on developing strong in country systems for data collection and dissemination.
  • 19. Acknowledgements Funding for this work was provided by the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets and by an anonymous donor. We are grateful to IFPRI colleagues Maha Ashour, Zhe Guo, Caitlin Kieran, Hazel Malapit, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Wahid Quabili for helpful comments and assistance. Hosaena Ghebru Hagos of IFPRI for allowed access to unpublished Trabalho de Inquerito Agricola (TIA) survey collected by Ministry of Agriculture data from Mozambique; Perrine Burnod of Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) for allowing access to unpublished data from Madagascar. This paper benefited from helpful comments from the participants at the Gender and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa workshop at the International Fund for Agricultural and Development in Rome, and the International Conference on Agricultural Statistics 2013 in Rio de Janeiro, and to the Living Standards Measurement Study—Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team at the World Bank for helpful comments.
  • 20. Gender and Social Capital Ruth Meinzen-Dick Environment and Production Technology Division International Food Policy Research Institute IFPRI Policy Seminar, November 22, 2013 Washington DC
  • 21. Types of Social Capital • Group membership – – – – – Producer groups Microfinance Funeral societies Civic, religious groups Advocacy • Social networks – Kinship – Friendship – Contacts Photo credits: Regina Birner
  • 22. Importance of Social Capital • • • • • Access to services (extension, credit, seed, etc.) Control of resources Resilience to shocks Status Empowerment
  • 23. Is there a gender gap in social capital?
  • 24. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index data on group membership Group Membership: Percentage of women and men in dual households with adequate achievement regardless of overall empowerment status Men Women 90.0 82.2 80.0 Percentage with adequate achivement 82.7 79.2 81.3 79.5 74.5 73.7 70.6 70.0 64.7 63.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 37.0 36.4 30.0 22.9 20.0 16.7 10.0 0.0 NEPAL* TAJIKISTAN* * Indicates statistically significant difference at 0.05 level KENYA* RWANDA UGANDA MALAWI* ZAMBIA*
  • 25. Is there a gender gap in social capital? • Formal organizations – Men in farmer groups, market oriented – Women in civic and religious groups – Men more likely to be in leadership • Social networks – Quantity vs quality of ties Bonding Bridging Linking
  • 26. Gendered barriers to participation • • • • • • Structural (e.g. membership requirements) Time Mobility Material constraints (money) Confidence Gender norms – Public space as male – Female seclusion – Speaking in public
  • 27. Implications • Social capital: potential, not panacea – Substitute or complement to other assets? – Exclusion of the very poor, marginalized • Service delivery – Building on what (whose) groups or networks? – Group composition: men’s, women’s, or mixed? • Organizational efforts – Potential, but not costless – Do organizations meet men’s or women’s needs? – Address gendered barriers to participation