ICRW: Tools and tactics - An analytical framework for doing gender analysis of agricultural value chains
Tools and tactics:An analytical framework for doing gender analysis of agricultural value chains
Is there a need for another tool…• Linking the chain to the household and wider institutional context• Posing questions emphasizing forward/backward links for women & men• Integrating power and its distribution• Giving more operational help – how to do it!• Acknowledging rural livelihood diversification and opportunity costs, synergies across activities• Including a risk perspective…to support gender analysis and to define upgrading paths?
Steps in GAAVC (Gender analysis of agricultural value chains)• Select chain & justify – Market demand, opportunity costs/risk, complementarities, women’s and men’s interests• Specify research questions – Provide focus for the analysis to come• Preliminary chain map with concentrations by sex…for example• Detailed gender analysis of specific nodes, informed by context – Analytical framework
From the producer perspective: Inputs Markets local markets national international transportation small-scaleProcessing home based processing plants credit (SME) informationWholesale local traders wholesalers equipment small scale commercial raw materialsProduction farmers farmers wage laborers
From the processor perspective Markets local markets national international Inputs transportation small-scale homeProcessing processing plants based (SME) creditWholesale local traders wholesalers information equipmentProduction small scale commercial farmers farmers raw materials wage laborers
Institutional context• Social, cultural, economic, policy environment within which selected chain, and others, function• Explore relevant parameters affecting overall chain – Trade policy, gender norms, infrastructure, legal frameworks• Delve into specifics per node: how is institutional context operationalized to affect chain functions & its diverse actors?
GAAVC analytical frameworkIssue: Within each issue assess:• Activities & actors • What• Input access & control • How many/much• Market linkages & • Where governance • Power/control• Economic • Institutional constraints empowerment • Opportunities• Risk reductionAsk questions from perspective of focal actors across each node and trace links backward & forward
Hypothetical example: Mango chain Production flows
Actors & activitiesWhat:• Women maintain mango trees, harvest, sell on roadside; also involved in cassava: weeding, harvest; overlapping time demands; HH work roles• Men little role in mango; larger role in cassava - demand women’s labor timeHow many:• Women in approximately 400 households in this region participateWhere (mobility/visibility):• Older women or children sell at roadsides, not in formal market spacesPower/control:• Men own mango trees and decide about investment in crop inputs• Women allocate their time to mango but as residual; men make claims on women’s labor for other cropsInstitutional constraints:• Women do not own trees (tenure)• Women’s time poverty leaves them little time to increase mango related workOpportunities:• Women want closer water pumps to free time; young women are interested in processing plant work
Access to inputsWhat• Improved varieties available but expensive; fertilizer is same; credit available but returns to investment unknown; training on tree pruning could improve outputHow much• HHs spend about $25/season on inputs; lack of market links limits men’s willingness to investWhere• Buy limited range of inputs from local dealer; buy on credit.Power/control• Strong relationship of help/support with supplier; difficult to supplant or to jeopardize thru bargaining, buying elsewhere• Men in HH decide on input purchases and allocationInstitutional constraints• Women’s lack of land, tree ownership/control; Input market structure; poor infrastructureOpportunities• Group formation; training provision to women; input affordability?
Market linkages & governanceWhat• Informal; traders sell to urban fresh and processing mkts; quality issues; women lack linksHow much/many• Higher prices in urban mkts; traders capture gains; men unwilling to invest - uncertaintyWhere• Small quantity and quality: informal mkt salesPower/control• Women control their direct sales; could earn more if reach urban mkts; women need to strengthen links and position with tradersInstitutional constraints• Time poverty; market structure limits terms of access (traders); trade policy gives buyers more power than producersOpportunities• Group formation; invest in quality; maintain women’s benefits
Economic empowermentWhat• Low inputs, weak tree care & quality affect economic success• Informal sales at relatively low levels enable women’s control of incomeHow much• Range of profits: -$10 to $55 per seasonWhere• Groups important to women – space outside HH to network, gain confidencePower/control• Women prefer informality to maintain control; use income for school, medical, foodInstitutional constraints• Women negotiate, strategize in HH and market but within limits: marriage is better optionOpportunities• If formalize markets need to engage men and address gender relations to ensure women benefit
RisksWhat• Climate, pests; new varieties and uncertainty; time poverty; male appropriation/female resistance?How much• Can produce at loss if a poor year; limits input investment…reducing productivityWhere (NA)Power/control• New mkts and standards push risk to producers; intermediary powerInstitutional constraints• Time poverty and expanding mkts; male public role & group formation• Poor regulation of MFIsOpportunities• Index insurance? Support for investment in new varieties; reduce domestic work; groups to raise bargaining power – female membership
Conclusion• Gender-responsive analytical framework – Power, institutions, social context – Economic outcomes• Data collection – used to inform program design• Flexible in application: depth & focus of probing informed by research aims• Looking for feedback: should this be developed further? How?