Advertisement
Check these out next
Gender and food systems research: Key lessons from the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund
Apr. 16, 2019•0 likes•417 views
0 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Environment
This presentation was given by Franz Wong and Katrine Danielsen (KIT Royal Tropical Institute), and Jemimah Njuki (IDRC) on April 16, 2019, as part of the webinar ‘Typologies of change – Making sense of gender integration in agriculture and food security research'. The webinar was co-organized by the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Read more about this webinar at: http://gender.cgiar.org/webinar-typologies-of-change Find out about other webinars hosted by the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research: http://gender.cgiar.org/gender_events/webinars/
CGIARFollow
CGIARAdvertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Recommended
Examining the State of Community-led Development Programming: Reflections on ...International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Quisumbing project overview v2genderassets
Examining the State of Community-led Development ProgrammingInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Webinar | Gender Equality in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Processes: Assess...International Institute for Sustainable Development
Summary on the mid project workshops in ghana and malawiAfricaRISING SAIRLA
Gender research at ILRI over the last decade ILRI
Gender and food systems research: Key lessons from the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund
- Gender and Food Systems Research: Key Lessons from the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund Katrine Danielsen, Franz Wong, Silvia Sarapura and Jemimah Njuki
- Agenda • Introductions • Overview of CIFSRF and Background to the gender synthesis • Synthesis Approach • Key findings • Main features of gender integration and CIFSRF • Key Lessons and Looking Forward • Questions and comments
- 4 CIFSRF | 2009 – 2018 39 projects in 25 countries CA $124 million in funding 40 Southern organizations 20 Canadian organizations DEJAGERIDRC:BARTAY FANAGUA The Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF) invests in developing and scaling up solutions that increase production, access, and consumption of safe and nutritious food.
- Diversity of research for development topics Nutrition and health Improved crops Agro- ecological approaches Post- harvest technologies Food safety Value chains Vaccine development Crop diversification Management practices Distribution systems Fish-farming and aquaculture Access to markets
- CIFRSF Gender Synthesis: Key Questions • What have been the different strategies applied by projects to integrate gender? And how can these be categorized? • What are the key gender outcomes from the projects? • What is the relationship between strategies and outcomes? Do projects with certain strategies lead to certain outcomes? • What factors have facilitated or constrained projects form meaningfully integrating gender, or delivering gender outcomes?
- Audience participation: think about if… Your sex is • man • woman Your citizenship is European other
- Buzz How did you feel? Did you “fit” into these categories? What were these categories about? Sex: man or woman Citizenship: European or Other
- Typologies of gender integration: NOT TARGETED (SCORE 0): The project/programme has been screened against the marker but has not been found to target gender equality. SIGNIFICANT (SCORE 1): Gender equality is an important and deliberate objective, butnottheprincipalreasonforundertakingtheproject/ programme. PRINCIPAL (SCORE 2): Genderequalityisthemainobjectiveoftheproject/ programme and is fundamental in its design and expected results.The project/programme would not have been undertaken without this gender equality objective.
- Approach to developing typologies Iterative approach: Literature review on existing gender integration typologies to conceptually structure the synthesis Scrutinizing CIFSRF project documentation/data and built up categories inductively Resulting in analytical framework with 2 dimensions: 1.Gender integration strategy typology 2.Gender outcomes typology 11
- Gender outcomes of CIFSRF projects
- Key findings from “Women Reached” projects “Women Reached” projects: Understanding of purpose of integrating gender = better gender balance Narrow focus on women as recipients of information - assumptions that involving women in project activities would be sufficient for women to benefit No investigation of gender based barriers to technology design, adoption and distribution - assumptions that making the products available in market would be sufficient for women to benefit Worked within the status quo of gender relations - likely reinforced dominant gender relations with men as only recognised knowledge brokers
- Key findings “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” projects “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” projects: Targeted women with specific interventions that addressed women’s needs = increased women’s access to various resources including knowledge, groups, productive resources and agricultural technologies “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits“ sub-outcomes were distinct and also contributed to each other. For example: Knowledge and productive resources => essential for adopting certain agricultural and nutritional innovations Access to resources does not guarantee access to benefits
- Key findings from “Women Empowerment” projects Enhanced recognition of women increased their access resources and benefits. Simultaneous critical reflection of social structures and relations contributed to their improved status The link between women’s increased contribution to household income and intra-household decision-making is not a causal relationship. Context-specific conditions defined women’s sphere of influence Recognition by men of women’s productive and reproductive roles was important in changing how roles and functions were divided between men and women Women’s increased access to and control over resources was contingent on the status of the resources “Women’s Empowerment” sub-outcomes were linked and highly processual – and not achieved in isolation from each other but were mutually reinforcing
- Conclusion Women’s empowerment has specific outcomes but at the same time is a process of change. There is no one-to-one link between one particular strategy category and one particular outcome category. Well-resourced projects that used a variety of different strategies + activities to address multiple, context-specific problems, generally achieved more and higher level categories of gender outcomes than projects with fewer strategies and resources. Projects that acknowledged relationships between gender outcomes, and explored conditions under which women could access and control resources, were more likely to achieve benefits and empower women than projects that assumed that access to resources led to or guaranteed control 32
- Key gender integration points in the CIFSRF funding cycle
- Programmatic Factors
- Use of common indicators and metrics to measure outcomes across projects and programs Gender focused /specific research projects –gender at the core and led by gender scientists Building capacity for gender, measurement and learning The politics of gender analysis frameworks (back tracks) Key Lessons and Looking Forward
- Both full reports are available at Typologies of change : gender integration in agriculture & food security research URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/57120 Lessons learned synthesis paper : gender integration and the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/57119
- Questions and comments
Editor's Notes
- This slide can serve as a starting or ending slide. You are not required to add any content to the slide. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Il s’agit de la diapositive pour le début ou la fin de votre présentation. Vous n'êtes pas obligé d'ajouter quoi que ce soit sur cette diapositive.
- This is the title slide as it contains IDRC branding elements. See the Best Practices document in the Template folder for guidelines. Please keep the font in Segoe UI for consistency. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Il s'agit de la diapositive contenant le titre de votre présentation puisqu’elle contient les logos du CRDI. Pour plus d’instructions, consultez le document sur les meilleures pratiques pour les présentations PowerPoint. Ce document se trouve dans le dossier comportant les divers gabarits du CRDI. Veuillez garder la police Segoe UI pour l’ensemble de votre présentation.
- Goals: Harness expertise of Canadian and Southern Researchers Blend “cutting-edge” science with farmers’ know-how and delivery systems to develop - ‘“Use-inspired” research that meet needs of intended users – both women and men Connectin nforming policy Project examples: Promoting aquaculture in rural Sri Lanka - 106342 Many best management practices (BMPs) for sustainable aquaculture exist in Sri Lanka, but few are adopted by farmers. This research helped shrimp farmers adapt BMPs through delivery innovations and environmental management information via mobile phones. Implementing partners: University of Calgary, Wayamba University Countries: Sri Lanka Funding: CA$ 925,689 Duration: September 12010 - January 2013 Nutrition from aquaculture and home gardens in Cambodia – 106928 The “Fish on Farms” project addressed maternal and child under-nutrition in Cambodia, which is in part the result of lack of crop diversity beyond rice. It tested how households can combine small-scale aquaculture (fish ponds) with Homestead Food Production (home gardens). Implementing partners: Helen Keller International, University of British Columbia Countries: Cambodia Funding: CA$ 2,914,423 Duration: March 2012 - August 2014 (Second phase currently active) Amazon fish for food – 107985 This project aims to improve food security and livelihoods of Bolivians living in poverty, particularly women and indigenous peoples, through fish – including small-scale fisheries, small-scale family-based aquaculture, and increased fish consumption. Implementing partners: World Fisheries Trust, University of Victoria, Asociación Faunagua, Centro de Promoción Agropecuaria Campesina, Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Regional, Ingeniería Marketing Gestión Consulting S.R.L. Countries: Bolivia Funding: CA$ 4,998,617 Duration: March 5, 2015 - March 5, 2018
- A diverse portfolio of projects focused on Agriculture production, nutrition and value chains/markets – informed the gender approach and gender integration strategy Improved management practices: Farming systems, Livestock, Aquaculture Post-harvest technologies, processing, value chains: Vegetables and fruits (from indigenous technology to nanotechnology), Millets, Livestock Animal vaccine development Nutrition and health: Diversified foods Nutrition education for women and children Benchmarking, food safety Increase production and productivity (examples): Crop diversification and improved cultivation practices Neglected and secondary crops (Millets, Legumes, Indigenous vegetables, Root crops) Expanding Agro-ecological zones Agriculture systems approach Improve distribution (examples): Post harvest technologies Connectivity to markets Value chains Availability, access and utilization
- This presentation focuses on findings of about integrating gender in FSN projects. This analysis was based on five research questions. The synthesis covers 18 projects financed by the second phase of CIFSRF. It is based on review of more than 180 project related documents, interim reports from the CIFSRF contribution analysis and nine key informant interviews (KII) with 14 project staff; eight men and six women. We used a purposeful sampling approach for the KIIs where Phase 2 projects were identified using two criteria: i) projects with a gender strategy or with demonstrated strategic gender practice (i.e., elements of strategic thinking on what to achieve and how), and ii) projects with documented gender outcomes
- Sex: man or women Binary and fixed: no other option (now changing with some countries allowing for “x” for unspecified or a 3rd gender) Confusing: are we speaking of people’s biological sex or their gender identity? What is purpose: for identification if your name is “Pat”, “Sal” Citizenship: Dutch, European, Other Open for allows for “other” Particular focus of categories: Dutch-centred and relative positioning of “others” Purpose: which passport your carry? Or to identify you. Franz’s experience being “Chinese Canadian”
- Gender Integration Gender Integration is about how gender issues are incorporated in the analysis, design and/or implementation of a policy, program or project For the synthesis, we needed some way to assess to what degree gender was integrated in FNS research projects and adopted GTA There are many examples of current gender integration framework. For instance: Early attempt by Oxfam Novib with its Gender Traffic Light that gave 1 of 3 ratings based on 8 questions about the Grantee’s GJ approach, 4 for the program level and 4 for the organisational level with three scoring variables of yes, no, partially to give a final total to determine which light EC has its Gender Equality Marker to assess projects or programmes We found current typologies differ term of the methodological basis of the categories in the typologies and categorizations what they categorize terminologies and concepts they use which are based on different conceptual and analytical frameworks For example, lets look at a commonly used framework the GE Continuum tool Explain how it works The problems we found Dated and not suitable for CIFSRF projects (supports only gender aware) Issues of terminology: “gender blind” and “gender exploitative” Idea of continuum and false equivalence of categories: assumes projects can shift from one to another (can they move from accommodating to GT and still be same project?) Very specific normative agenda: transformative is about norms and dynamics (?) We needed to come up with a framework that (a) allows for understanding the contextual nature of each project WHILE (b) allowing for comparison without smoothing out the specificities of a particular context that, making such generalization claims too vague. This was our ontological paradox
- We approached this synthesis by developing typologies from a contextualized perspective where the data itself was used to develop a framework of understanding of typologies. Categories of CIFSRF gender integration strategies and gender outcomes and their interrelations were not predefined, but were built up inductively from the data set. An initial literature review provided key insights to conceptually structure the synthesis . Which categories were applicable was based on the data, and the same counted for the relations between strategies, outcomes and factors. Our analytical framework had two distinct dimensions: ● a gender integration strategy typology with eight main categories of strategies covering ‘research content strategies’ as well as ‘research process strategies’, and ● a gender outcomes typology with three main outcome categories conceptually distinguishing between “Women Reached’, “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” and “Women’s Empowerment” outcomes
- The gender strategy typology, presented in Table 1, is based on a conceptual clustering structure and consists of eight broad categories of gender integration strategies, which are further divided into sub-categories. The first four categories cover ‘research content strategies’ that directly engage with gender roles and relations and address gender concerns in the households, communities, and systems targeted by projects. The last four categories of the typology include ‘research process strategies’ to enable and urge projects and their staff to work with gender in the research content.
- The paper’s gender outcome typology (Table 3) makes a conceptual distinction between three categories of gender outcomes: “Women Reached’, “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” and “Women’s Empowerment”: (Inspired by Johnson et al. 2017). Gender outcomes under “Women Reached” include number of women who have been involved in project activities as participants. “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” outcomes: These gender outcomes refer to women’s increased opportunities and/or abilities to use resources and benefits. Here the typology also makes a distinction between accessing resources and accessing the benefits derived from these resources. Seven specific gender outcomes are included that respond to different needs of women, and, in diverse contexts, related to their particular roles. The set of resources considered is broad and includes intangible resources such as knowledge and skills (agriculture, business, nutrition) and time as well as tangible productive resources (credit, inputs, markets, technologies such as equipment, management practices, improved crop varieties as well as membership in groups and organizations). Derived benefits include income, food, health, and reduced drudgery. Gender outcomes under “Women Empowerment” involve women’s strengthened capacities to make choices on their own and voice concerns that are listened to and acted on. Four specific outcomes are included: increased control over decisions (production, nutrition, income), increased decision-making, increased voice and leadership, enhanced recognition of women, and positive change in social and gender norms. Our gender outcomes typology brings outcomes and sub-outcomes together in one framework. The typology reflects a continuum of outcomes from ‘Reached’ to ‘Accessing Resources and Benefits’ to ‘Empowered’. As a continuum, these outcomes can be inter-related. However, these inter-relationships are not necessarily a given.
- As mentioned by Franz, one of the main research questions the relationship between strategies and outcomes – in particular IDRC was interested in knowing if projects with certain strategies lead to certain outcomes. Table 4 visualizes the result of our synthesis in that respect (at strategy level). Some guidance to “read” the table: On the left you have the 18 projects - they are divided by color into 3 gender outcome categories. On the top, in green, projects that achieved women reached outcomes ONLY. Then in blue – projects that in also achieved Women Accessing Resources and Benefit Outcomes. And below, in petrol color the projects that achieved all 3 categories of outcomes incl. Women’s Empowerment outcomes. The numbers in the bubbles refer to the different gender strategy categories – so for example 1 is recognition strategies, and 2 redistribution strategies etc. Table 4 illustrates a number of key findings. -Firstly, there is no one-to-one link between one particular strategy category and one particular outcome category. -Secondly, strategies applied increase with projects achieving higher level gender outcomes –i.e. that is clear if we compare the green, with the blue and the petrol fields -And thirdly, redistribution strategies (i.e. strategy category 2) do not automatically deliver on increasing women’s access to and control over resources – we see three projects having applied redistribution strategies but not achieved women accessing resources and benefits outcomes.
- Table 5 goes one level deeper – and shows gender outcomes achieved and sub-strategies applied. Similar to table 4, on the left you have the 18 projects divided into 3 colors – one for each gender outcome category. The rows illustrate gender strategy categories – and as you can see they are illustrated at sub-strategy level. The numbers in the small squares refer to the different sub-gender strategy categories – so for example 1.1 is Gender sensitization, 1.2 Engaging men etc.
- Let’s ‘zoom-in’ on Recognition Strategies
- If we start ‘from below’, we see that for projects achieving Women’s Empowerment Outcomes the two most consistent sub-strategies applied were 1.2 Engaging Men and 1.3 Visibilizing women’s contribution.
- Moving up to projects that achieved Women Accessing Resources and Benefits Outcomes we see that sub-strategy 1.2 (Engaging men) was applied LESS compared to projects that achieved Women’s Empowerment Outcomes.
- Let’s now zoom in on Agency strategies.
- We see that they were adopted by ALL projects achieving Women’s Empowerment Outcomes and most projects (5 out of 8) that achieved Women Accessing Resources and Benefits Outcomes. What is different is which sub-strategy they adopted.
- Zooming in on sub-strategies, we see that not all projects that used collective action strategies (i.e. sub-strategy 3.2) resulted in achievements of women empowerment outcomes (3, 6, 8, 9 10 DID NOT)
- YELLOW: We also see that project that adopted strategies to increase women’s decision-making (i.e. P1 and P2 that used sub-strategy 3.3), even without supporting women’s formal leadership (3.1) or collective action (3.2), resulted in women empowerment outcomes (P1, P2). Conversely, projects that supported collective action (3.2), and did not achieve “Women’s Empowerment” outcomes, did not adopt strategies to increase women’s decision-making (3.3) (P8, P9, P10). RED.
- Table 6 goes deeper into the sub-outcomes achieved by projects that have achieved Women Accessing Resources and benefits outcomes BLUE and Women’s Empowerment outcomes PETROL Similar to other tables, on the left you have the projects. The rows illustrate gender sub-outcomes achieved. – 7 for Women Accessing Resources and benefits outcomes BLUE and 4 for Women’s Empowerment outcomes PETROL
- Key take-aways: Let’s ‘zoom-in’ on Women’s Empowerment sub-outcomes. We see clearly that 3.3 Enhanced recognition and status was the most consistent sub-outcome – 1, 2, 7, 11, 13 and 14. With this conclusion – and the conclusions illustrated in table 5 – we can draw an important finding: there appears to be a correlation between projects that adopted the engaging men sub-strategy (sub-strategy 1.2) and projects that achieved enhanced recognition and status of women (sub-outcome 3.3.) – suggesting the critical need to engage men achieve women’s empowerment outcomes.
- Indeed, engaging men (sub-strategy 1.2) was one of the two most common sub-strategies among projects achieving Women Empowerment Outcomes YELLOW (5 out of 6 projects) - but was less applied in projects achieving women accessing resources and benefits (only 2 out of 8 projects).
- And then a final illustrative example, we want to share with you: We also see that only two projects achieved sub-outcome 3.4 Change in gender norms.
- Linking back to Table 5, what make these projects stand out is that they adopted a combination of Visibilizing women’s contribution (1.3) AND Increasing women’s decision-making (3.3) AND Recognizing intersectionality (4.2).
- All CIFSRF projects achieved “Women Reached” outcomes (Figure 1). They reached women in different and multiple roles determined by the project’s focus. For example, projects highlighting nutrition were more likely to reach women in their roles as consumers, mothers and/or food-preparers. Projects focusing on improved access to resources, markets and inputs were more likely to reach women as farmers, entrepreneurs, business-owners, and/or workers. Main take-aways from “Women Reached” projects “Women Reached” projects: understood the purpose of integrating gender as ensuring a better gender balance and counting men and women. focused narrowly on women as recipients of information and technologies without acknowledging their roles as legitimate knowledge holders and brokers, and made assumptions that reaching women by involving them in project activities would be sufficient for women to benefit. developed and made products available in the market, and assumed women would automatically benefit without prior investigation of gender based barriers to product use, adoption and distribution that are in part a result of how the market works. worked within the status quo of social relations of gender and, as a consequence, likely reinforced the dominant gender relations with men being privileged as heads of households and the main and only recognised knowledge brokers (Danielsen and Wong, 2014).
- Fourteen CIFSRF projects achieved “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” outcomes (Figure 1). Within this outcome category, seven sub-outcomes were achieved (Table 6), and we distinguish between women accessing resources (knowledge, groups, productive resources, technology) and women accruing benefits from such access (income, food consumption, reduced drudgery). Main take-aways from “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” projects By targeting women with specific interventions that addressed women’s needs - such as technology design that was sensitive to women’s lives - “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits “ projects increased women’s access to various resources including knowledge, groups, productive resources and agricultural technologies. “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits“ sub-outcomes were distinct and also contributed to each other in various ways. Some gender outcomes were about access to particular resources such as knowledge and productive resources. Achieving such outcomes were essential for accessing other resources, for example improved knowledge and access to credit were needed for women to adopt certain agricultural and nutritional innovations. Access to resources did not guarantee access to benefits, including income, food or reduced drudgery. While all projects improved women’s agriculture knowledge and skills, as this was relatively easy to achieve with training, and to various degrees access to other resources, not all projects achieved benefits for women.
- Six CIFSRF projects achieved “Women’s Empowerment” outcomes in addition to “Women Reached” and “Women Accessing Resources and Benefits” outcomes (Figure 1). Within this outcome category, four sub-outcomes were achieved, i.e., increased recognition, control over decisions, and formal leadership as well as change in gender norms (Table 6). Main take-aways from “Women’s Empowerment” projects Enhanced recognition of women’s roles and functions in CIFSRF projects by project staff, communities, households, men and/or women themselves resulted in increased access by women to a range of resources and benefits. In projects that simultaneously encouraged critical reflection of social structures such as through participatory research processes and attention to the relational aspects of gender inequity, the enhanced recognition also contributed to “Women’s Empowerment” outcomes demonstrated by improved status of women in households, communities, and organizations. Community gender sensitization and/or strategies to engage men in combination with strategies to support women’s access to resources increased women’s influence over production-related decisions, and control over income and food consumption. However, the link between women’s increased contribution to household income and intra-household decision-making does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Context-specific conditions defined and occasionally limited women’s sphere of influence (i.e. location and size/quality of land women could access) and the kind of income women could control (i.e. excess income). In other words, the change that was achieved was within women’s current socially ascribed sphere of influence, which was left intact. Still, what makes “Women’s Empowerment” projects distinct is that they not only gained access to resources but also some element of control over them and derived benefits. Recognition by men of women’s productive and reproductive roles constituted an important step in changing how roles and functions are divided between men and women. Men's acknowledgement of the monetary value of women's care work appeared to be a contributing factor for women’s empowerment and the transformation of gender norms and relations. Women’s increased access to and control over resources was contingent on the status of the resources and often it seemed of a lower status than other resources (e.g., income from excess produce, “small” amounts of seed, fish farmer organisations as opposed to unions). The synthesis found that “Women’s Empowerment” sub-outcomes were linked and highly processual. They were not achieved in isolation from each other but were mutually reinforcing with outcomes contributing to other outcomes and vice versa (e.g. the symbolic power of women’s leadership could affect the potential of challenging norms and values related to women’s roles and functions).
- To conclude, the synthesis explored the “in-between space” between gender integration and gender transformation approaches. A key take-way is that women’s empowerment has specific outcomes but at the same time is a process of change. There is no one-to-one link between one particular strategy category and one particular outcome category. Projects that used a variety of different strategies and activities to address multiple, context-specific problems, combined with the investment in sufficient resources and capacities, generally achieved more and higher level categories of gender outcomes than projects that implemented fewer strategies with fewer resources. Projects that explicitly acknowledged relationships between gender outcomes, and explored and took into account the conditions under which women could access and control resources, were more likely to achieve benefits and empower women than projects that implicitly assumed that access to resources led to or guaranteed control.
- 2. Politics of gender analysis framework Have implicit theories of change (eg linear progression from gender integration to gender transformation just like you go from gender unaware to gender aware) Categorizing allowed by frameworks supports analysis but focusing on particular data BUT leaves out (de privileges others) Their structure assumes a particular reality: the classical approach has defined categories that are mutually exclusive while conceptual clustering approach allows for an object to belong to more than one category
Advertisement