At the cutting edge: current knowledge on closing the gender gap in farming under climate change

Download At the cutting edge: current knowledge on closing the gender gap in farming under climate change

Post on 15-Jul-2015

811 views

Category:

Environment

0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • At the cu(ng edge: current knowledge on closing the gender

    gap in farming under climate change

    Jennifer Twyman Jacqueline Ashby

  • Gender Inequali?es in Agriculture

    Farming under climate change? Current Climate Variability & Future Climate Changes

    Increased Risk & Uncertainty What does gender have to do with this? Exis?ng gender inequali?es in agriculture, Aect womens and mens ability to adapt.

  • Gender & Agriculture Myths

  • Policy built on myths

    . Perpetuates genderdieren?ated low produc?vity traps Lower resources

    and rights

    Lower access to CSA inputs, services and markets

    Lower produc?vity, and degrada?on of the natural resource base

    Drudgery and labor constraints

    Loss of control over products, sales and income

    Lower Incen?ves to invest in CSA

  • Danger of Relying on Myths

    Unreliable evidence is not ques?oned: zombie sta?s?cs

    Vague concep?ons of gender lead to imprecise targe?ng: zombie stereotypes

    Root causes of major problems are disguised Myths are a bad basis for policy decision-making but there is oYen a par?al truth behind the myth.

  • Gender, Agriculture and Climate Change Myths

    Women produce 60 80% of our food. Women are the most vulnerable to climate change because they are among the poorest.

    Women make be>er stewards of natural resources than men.

    New CSA technology can close the gender gap. The feminiza?on of agriculture means women are

    increasingly responsible for CSA. Women own less than 1% of the land. Inclusion means increasing womens par?cipa?on in

    poli?cal processes for CSA.

  • Objec?ves

    Reconsider some myths related to gender, agriculture and climate change.

    Examine related data and iden?fy the truths behind the myths.

    Explore their relevance for policy.

  • MYTH: WOMEN PRODUCE 60 80% OF OUR FOOD.

    Photocredit: Neil Palmer (CIAT)

  • Source: FAOSTAT in Doss, 2011

    Report agriculture as their primary ac?vity 79%

    Report a dierent occupa?on as their primary ac?vity 21%

    Report agriculture as their primary ac?vity 48%

    Report dierent occupa?on as their primary ac?vity 52%

    Ra?onale: Economically Ac?ve Women

    Developing Countries Worldwide

  • Source: FAOSTAT in Doss, 2011

    male 58%

    female 42%

    % of men versus women reporPng agriculture as their primary acPvity in developing countries

    male female

    Economically ac?ve men and women in agriculture

  • Womens contribu?on to farm output

    There is a large range in contribu?ons of women to agricultural produc?on.

    3.1

    25

    33

    38

    2.1

    13.2 12

    17 13

    16 15 17.6

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    China BosniaHerzogovenia Ghana Nicaragua

    % of households headed by women % of total value of food produced by FHHs

    % of total value of food produced plots owned or managed by omen

    Source: Doss, 2011

  • Can we measure womens contribu?on to farm output?

    Women and men produce crops together; its impossible to alribute produc?on to women or men.

  • Contribu?on to farm labor

    Women contribute a signicant amount of ?me to agricultural produc?on. Time use studies from across Africa and Asia show that in some cases womens share is 60% of the total ?me spent in agricultural ac?vi?es (Doss 2011, review of 8 studies).

    Importance of gender division of labor: Case Study from Mexico (Bee 2014); Gender division of labor: women do the weeding. Collect edible plants for household consump?on.

  • Contribu?on to farm labor

    Women contribute a signicant amount of ?me to agricultural produc?on. Time use studies from across Africa and Asia show that in some cases womens share is 60% of the total ?me spent in agricultural ac?vi?es (Doss 2011, review of 8 studies).

    Importance of gender division of labor: Case Study from Mexico (Bee 2014); Gender division of labor: women do the weeding. Collect edible plants for household consump?on.

    Photocredit: Caitlin Corner-Dollho (CIAT)

  • Implica?ons Policy and interven?ons must recognize & engage women as farmers. Example from Ambo District, Ethiopia: Unequal access to services

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    Irriga?on Extension Land redistribu?on

    Micronance Group associa?ons

    Female (%)

    Male (%)

    Source: Ogato, Boon & Subramani 2009)

  • MYTH: THE POOR ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SINCE WOMEN MAKE UP 70% OF THE POOR, THEY ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE.

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein (CIAT)

  • Ra?onale

    The poor have fewer resources to draw on for coping with climate change.

    Rural households oYen rely on natural resources (e.g. water & rewood). OYen related to womens household work.

    But, it draws on a zombie sta?s?c and a zombie stereotype...

  • Are women the poorest and most vulnerable?

    Several studies have interrogated the claim that women are the poorest (Chant, Jackson, Arora-Jonsson, etc.).

    Portrays women as vic?ms. Arora-Jonsson: dichotomy women as vic?ms or

    saviors. Reality: men and women have dierent vulnerabili?es

    to climate change, dependent on gender norms that prescribe Gender division of labor Access to and control over resources Decision-making power

  • Examples: Hurricanes & Flooding

    Bangladesh More women than men

    died. Women do not generally

    learn to swim, they have limited mobility, felt shelters were unsafe, care for elderly who could not move to shelter.

    Nicaragua More men than women

    died. Men more likely to

    par?cipate in risky ac?vi?es such as search and rescue.

    Sources: CCC 2013; Delaney and Shrader 2000

  • Example: Agriculture

    Mahajan (2014): Blame it on the rain? Overall, changes in rain palerns did not impact the wage gap.

    However, it did in rain-fed rice producing regions. Women play greater role in crops, such as rice, that depend heavily on rainfall.

    Low rainfall years widen the gender wage gap; women suered a greater loss.

  • Implica?ons

    Need beler, less-fragmented data to understand the palerns behind the inconsistencies.

    Vulnerability not related to sex but rather gender norms, which are an expression of power dieren?als.

  • MYTH: WOMEN MAKE BETTER STEWARDS OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

    Photocredit: Neil Palmer (CIAT)

  • Ra?onale

    Women rely more than men on natural resources for food, rewood and water and so seek more ac?vely to conserve these.

    Women are more disposed to collaborate in collec?ve ac?on required for mi?ga?on or adapta?on more likely to succeed.

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein (CIAT)

  • Conic?ng evidence

    Women are less likely to adopt CSA technologies: of 13 empirical studies, 8 found men were more likely to adopt the improved prac?ce .

    In East Africa, women were more likely than or just as likely as men to adopt CSA prac?ces

    Why? Women dont have a single, unied interest. Because social class intervenes: --poor women may have more in common with poor men than with other women from wealthier social strata

    Source: Peters et al, 2010;

  • Does womens par?cipa?on improve stewardship?

    Par?cipa?on in groups can be benecial for poor women and men as well

    But theres no consistent evidence that womens par?cipa?on in groups for NRM or CSA purposes improves resource management outcomes

    Photocredit: Gian Betancourt (CIAT)

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein

  • Implica?ons

    More precise socioeconomic targe?ng based on gender and social class is required

    Inclusion and par?cipa?on is desirable but not sucient if underlying gender and class inequali?es are not addressed

  • MYTH: TECHNOLOGIES CAN CLOSE THE GENDER GAP

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein (CIAT) Photocredit: Gian Betancourt (CIAT)

  • Ra?onale

    Gender-equal access to technology, training, extension and credit will enable women to benet equally

    Women friendly technologies (e.g. solar ovens, home gardens, small irriga?on pumps etc.) will overcome the gender gap

  • Unequal decision-making power

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    When husband owns plot When wife owns plot Female household head

    Data for Zambia

    Zambia: Woman (%)

    makes decisions on income from sales (N=439

    individuals) for dierent types of plot ownership

  • Control malers: irriga?on pumps Tanzania

    New technology: few women (10%) owned or controlled

    small irriga?on pump Womens labor input increased under irriga?on Men moved into high-value, high-volume irrigated

    vegetables (women cul?vate minor vegetables) Men exclusively made the sales and spent the cash

    autonomously Control over crop choice determined the how benets of

    the irriga?on technology were distributed: more work for women to generate income they didnt control

    Source:Njuki et al 2014

  • Implica?ons

    Gender dierences in adop?on of technology are a symptom of other, deeper rooted problems

    Policy should seek equal access to assets, inputs and services when promo?ng CSA technology

    AND complement improved access with ensuring women get control over a share of resources, product and income

  • CONCLUSIONS

    Photocredit: Neil Palmer (CIAT)

  • WHAT DOES SUCCESSFUL GENDER RESPONSIVE FARMING UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE LOOK LIKE?

    Photocredit: Manon Koningstein (CIAT)

  • What does success look like?

    Addressing gender gaps in farming under climate change means policy must: Recognize women as farmers. Target more precisely - dis?nct socioeconomic types or classes of women with quite dierent constraints and interests

    Accept the limits of new technology Target men (not uniquely women) to address issues of control over resources and benets

  • Break out of gender-dieren?ated low produc?vity traps

    Equal access to inputs, services and markets

    Equal produc?vity, and conserva?on of the natural resource base Secure

    control over a share of products, sales and income

    Gendered Incen?ves to invest in CSA

    Reduced Drudgery

    More equal resources and rights

  • What next?

    Elevate the game in terms of the scope and scale of research investment. Research and evidence in this eld are fragmented and piecemeal, making cumula?ve learning dicult.

    Gender norms are dynamic, exible and can changewere not stuck

    Large scale policy experiments are needed to test approaches and generate clear guidelines.

Recommended

View more >