roots, ubers, bananas for food security and incomecipotato.org/wp-content/uploads/publication...

GENDER STRATEGY

Research to Nourish Africa

CIATCIATCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

International Center for Tropical Agriculture

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

BioversityI n t e r n a t i o n a l

ROOTS, TUBERS,and BANANAS

for food security and income

CRP 3.4

GENDER STRATEGY

ROOTS, TUBERS,and BANANAS

for food security and income

CRP 3.4

Research to Nourish Africa

CIATCIATCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

International Center for Tropical Agriculture

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

BioversityI n t e r n a t i o n a l

CGIAR Research ProgramAn International Alliance of

and regional, national, and private sector research-for-development agencies

August 2011

Roots, Tubers, and Bananas for Food Security and Income: CRP 3.4—Gender Strategy 1

Roots, Tubers, and Bananas for Food Security and Income CGIAR Research Program 3.4

1. Rationale and Program Strategy

About 200 million poor farmers in developing countries use roots, tubers, and bananas (RTB) for food security and income. They are produced mainly by small farmers and play an important role in the livelihoods of many vulnerable groups, including women, children/youths, tribal communities, and displaced populations. Women are very often the main producers and processors of these crops and can be principal beneficiaries when RTB serve as elements in a strategy to diversify global food supplies, buffer against market shocks, reduce the risk of food shortages around the world, and are valued commodities in expanding markets. To ensure that they do benefit, a clear gender strategy needs to be integrated throughout this CRP. Several characteristics of RTB favor their use as food security crops in multiple systems. These include home gardens, small orchards, roadsides, wetland margins, and rain‐fed hillside plots. Enhanced productivity and nutritional characteristics of these crops, value‐added traits for new markets, and their integration into well‐balanced local food systems can have a major impact on family food and nutritional security, especially for children and pregnant/lactating women. The extent of women’s participation in RTB production and processing in many parts of the world has been well documented. According to estimates by the International Fund for Agricultural Development, across Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) as much as 80% of farming depends on women’s labor (http://allafrica.com/stories/ 200910310003.html). However, the system of gender roles based on local culture in RTB cultivation and use is often complex. As an example, in Kagera (Tanzania), men are in charge of banana cultivation, whereas women complement household food supply from cassava and sweetpotato plots. Yet banana processing into beer is a common income‐generating activity for women and the elderly. The diversity of gender roles associated with these crops offers great opportunity for confronting poverty and food insecurity in households and among individuals through multiple channels, but this opportunity needs conceptual guidance and constant monitoring. This guidance will be provided through a gender strategy which has the goal of ensuring wider impact of RTB crops on household food security and poverty reduction through strengthening gender equity and responsiveness in all aspects of research, development, and uptake of new RTB technologies and practices. To achieve this goal the strategy will mainstream gender throughout the program: Engender targeting and priority‐setting Integrate gender‐responsive approaches and methods throughout the research for

development themes of the CRP Ensure gender‐responsive partnerships Identify ways to strengthen communication and knowledge sharing around gender issues Guide capacity strengthening in gender analysis and gender transformative methods and

approaches Design gender indicators and provide monitoring support in outcome and impact

assessment activities.


It will utilize both cross‐cutting approaches and methods and theme‐specific methods and tools to implement the strategy. Cross‐cutting approaches and methods will include: Methods and instruments developed through participatory research and gender analysis

work (e.g., Feldstein and Jiggins 1994, Fernandez 2009) A gender audit of systems and regions Gender responsive framework for identifying biophysical and socioeconomic bottlenecks

and for developing capacity‐strengthening strategies (e.g., Conlago et al. 2009) Gender review of policies related to production, processing and use of RTB crops.

Before describing the objectives, activities, and methods proposed in the different research themes, a brief summary is presented of the participatory process through which the strategy was developed.

2. Consultative Processes for Gender Strategy Development

The main components of the consultative process with stakeholders to provide key inputs to the CRP‐RTB involved seven regional stakeholder workshops attended by a total of 100 participants from 27 different countries and an on‐line “regional” survey for national and regional partners (prepared in English, Spanish, and French) that was answered by 181 people, of whom 79 had attended a workshop. There was also a shorter survey conducted and some one‐on‐one interviews undertaken. A major objective of consultation was to capture the perspectives of these stakeholders on the design and implementation of the CRP, including (1) evidence that they support the proposal in general and wish to be a part of it; (2) fresh ideas on how the proposal might be made more convincing, especially in the area of achieving impact; (3) suggestions on how partnerships, gender/youth strategy, communications/information, and capacity strengthening can best function in practice; and (4) specific indications on how their institution, and others, should be involved. During the workshops, discussions focused on how to achieve impact and, in particular, whether and how the four cross‐cutting topics (enabling partnerships, gender and youth, communications and information sharing, and capacity strengthening) would be useful in that. In relation to gender, the analysis of women’s responses showed that they, in common with other stakeholder groups, also tended to place less emphasis on “comprehensive gender strategies” than the other cross‐cutting topics. Comments suggested that the lower scores for gender are partly because of concern about creating an isolated gender topic, whereas most stakeholders would like to see mainstreaming of gender concerns. This underlines the importance of ensuring integration of gender‐responsive elements throughout the research program. To gauge the situation of women and young people from the perspective of stakeholders, regional survey participants were asked their degree of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. Respondents saw stronger opportunities for women than for young people in RTB crops. They considered that networking was more likely to help women’s livelihoods in postharvest technology and market opportunities than in seeds and cropping systems. They believed that women could also benefit if value chains were developed commercially. To strengthen gender and targeting in the proposal, several open questions were asked about the situation of the poor, and of women and young people, and about using RTB crops to improve that.


Participants emphasized the need to “prioritize ruthlessly” to ensure that benefits flow to the poor and to women and also to develop the seed and agricultural extension systems (through public, civil society, and/or private sector approaches) that will effectively deliver technologies to women farmers. A common idea in comments is that developing RTB crops in value chains can strengthen livelihood opportunities for the whole family—women, men, older people, and possibly young people, reducing migration to cities. This is also seen by some as a way to ensure that well‐intentioned but misguided help to some groups, to the exclusion of others, does not result in jealousy and increased domestic violence. Improved postharvest handling and storage of fresh produce is a way to increase family food security. It should be seen as separate from, although often complementary to, processing; the two need to be viewed and evaluated separately in research for development. Reflecting the wide range of opinion present among stakeholders, there was an important division of opinion on small‐scale enterprises for value‐addition, with a majority considering them an important opportunity for women and a minority who are concerned that more commercialization of these crops will displace women farmers. Women respondents’ priorities, when re‐analyzed separately, agreed quite closely with those of the whole on most issues, but they gave more emphasis to separate monitoring of early adoption; staffing strategies to encourage gender‐responsive research; research awards for women; and establishment of gender focal points. They gave lower priority, however, to reducing drudgery than men did.

3. Gender Mainstreaming Objectives and Activities within Research Themes

Theme 1: Conserving and accessing genetic resources Existing genetic diversity of the different RTB crops reflects, to a large extent, the cultural beliefs, livelihood needs, and practices of women and men who produce, store, and manage plant material in a wide range of agricultural systems in different parts of the world. Because of the clonal propagation of these crops, much of their conservation and use is closely tied to the domestic sphere in which women play a decisive role in storage for food and seed, food preparation, and seed selection and preparation for planting. In particular, women often make the final decision on selecting the best cultivars in terms of value for processing, cooking qualities and taste, and suitability for home consumption or for local marketability. Men and women are involved in the production of the crops and in selecting landraces that better tolerate biotic and abiotic stresses or which have preferred agronomic characteristics such as earliness or short or long dormancy. A gender strategy will be most relevant to outputs of this theme relating to the optimization of ex‐ and in‐situ conservation methodologies and the increased coverage of gene pools in global genebanks. A gendered understanding of indigenous knowledge and practice will be a key output of on‐farm conservation strategies. Prain, Schneider, and Widyastuti (2000) have reported the selection by New Guinea women of introduced sweeter, yellow‐ and orange‐colored sweetpotato as baby food. It is also known that on the eastern slopes of the Andes, short‐maturing chaucha cultivars of potato are planted to provide an early food supply for families. These kinds of detailed information will contribute to the characterization and documentation of native germplasm and will guide plans for repatriation of this germplasm. It will also help guide the selection of gene pools and composition of core collections in genebanks.


Theme 2: Accelerating the development and selection of varieties with higher, more stable yield and added value Breeding goals need to be balanced along a number of dimensions which will have gender implications. There is a balance to be drawn between breeding for agronomic traits/productivity on the one hand, and for quality characteristics on the other. These have different implications when one considers the production goals of particular farming systems, especially between food and nutrition security and income generation (Table 2.1). Since the declared breeding strategy of this theme is to move beyond breeding “generic” varieties towards developing specific varieties for different uses, there will unavoidably be tradeoffs and gender implications of targeting (e.g., nutritional vs. processing quality). It is important to understand the tradeoffs involved and how, for example, intensifying the generalized or specialized commercial potential of RTB will affect decision‐making and resource control between men and women and the nutritional well‐being of households. The gender strategy will have an important role in identifying gender consequences of different breeding options which will help breeders and research managers determine breeding investments and through application of methods and tools will help ensure the equitable distribution of benefits from new breeding products.

Table 2.1 Matrix of Gender Implications of Breeding Goals

Food Security Income

Agronomy/

Productivity

More subsistence food available to women for household provisioning.

Risk that women lose control over food from crops that shift from predominantly subsistence to commercial‐scale production.

Risk that women’s family labor burden may increase if cropping systems become more commercial

More production for generalized commodity markets favoring conventional gender roles in marketing.

Risk that women lose control over income from crops that shift from predominantly subsistence to commercial scale, with negative impacts on child welfare.

Increased demand for labor as cropping systems become more commercial may increase wage earning opportunities for landless women and men.

Quality Better nutrition of household members; specific nutritional targeting of young children.

Increased volumes for specialized markets, favoring new involvement of men (e.g., in linking to industry with processing varieties) and requiring special strategies supporting women’s involvement in enterprise development (link to Theme 6).

Specifically, the gender strategy will draw on tools and instruments developed through participatory research and gender analysis work on participatory plant breeding (Farnworth and Jiggins 2003). These tools not only enable adequate gendered diagnosis of end‐user needs, they also support adequate monitoring of the deployment of these technologies and, where necessary and when possible, propose adjustments or additional actions (e.g., the promotion of woman’s associations to enable them to better exploit marketing opportunities of the specialty varieties that will be generated). Greater equity in income benefits accruing to women and men from commercial crops can also have a broader positive impact on the farming system and on gender roles through offering a viable economic alternative to male migration. The departure of men to urban centers in search of work often leads to increased labor burdens on rural women and youths and weaker rural economies. This theme will involve capacity strengthening among team members and local partners in gender‐aware participatory plant breeding and preferred variety selection.


Theme 3: Managing priority pests and diseases The gender‐responsive components of this theme underscore the importance of understanding and, where appropriate, building on existing pest and disease knowledge of local farmers, differentiated by gender, and providing well‐targeted new learning experiences that can provide information, generate knowledge, and teach skills for the sustainable management of these biotic stresses in specific regions, systems, and crops. As stated in section 1, women are often the principal cultivators of RTB and, consequently, are faced with dealing with pest and disease problems. (The exact role of women and the level of pest and disease pressure vary across different regions and production systems.) The importance of particular pests and diseases and their appropriate management also vary depending on whether the main objective of the production system is for household consumption or for market sale. Theme 3 will factor in the role of women and the relative contribution of the different RTB crops to food security and income in determining priorities and actions. Until quite recently, men have tended to have a leading role in pest and disease control, primarily through the application of pesticides, which are acquired through commercial and social networks they tend to control (Arce, Prain, and Maldonado 2009). However, with increasing migration of men to urban centers and for other reasons, this appears to be changing. More women are becoming directly involved in preparation and use of pesticides, which increases health risks to themselves and their children. At the same time, there is evidence that women have greater concerns about agriculture‐health linkages—both positive and negative—and are receptive to messages about integrated pest management (IPM) (Norton et al. 2005). Thus there are strong arguments for involvement of women in alternative forms of pest and disease management. Capacity strengthening in Theme 3 will pay special attention to women’s needs for information and methods that can facilitate their understanding of biophysical information, which is frequently complex and not related to local or indigenous knowledge. The research approaches to be adopted will involve a gender audit of systems and regions where pests and diseases of global importance are prevalent. This will draw on specific methods focusing on gender and IPM (e.g., Vietnam National IPM Program 2011). Farmer field schools will continue to be used as a key philosophy and methodology for both research and farmer learning about detection, risks, ecology, and biology of pests and diseases and about options for sustainable management. Theme 4: Making available lowcost, highquality planting material for farmers As women often play an important role in the production of RTB for food and other uses, they have a particular need for access to quality planting material of their preferred cultivars. In many cases, however, women and men have differential access to formal and informal seed systems. An important cross‐crop output for this theme will be to understand the seed needs of key end‐users, including different household members, which will provide the starting point for developing more effective access to quality planting material, especially by women in poor male‐headed households. This will synthesize the experience of the CGIAR Centers and their partners. The proposed analytical tools for gender‐responsive comparison of alternative capacity‐strengthening systems will also examine gender‐specific delivery systems. On the basis of the results of the application of these and other tools, more effective approaches will be incorporated into RTB research with partners. Applying a gender perspective to analyze and improve seed systems will help to overcome or at least reduce existing biases in access to, availability of, and use of adequate seed.


Theme 5: Developing tools for more productive, ecologically robust cropping systems A gender‐related challenge specific to Theme 5 is the effect that intensification of crop management and the likely associated capital investments will have on women’s role in crop production. Key questions are: Will women be able to access the technology and the capital required to invest in it? And will they benefit from increased income flowing from this intensification? The gender strategy will target these issues, particularly in outputs 2 and 3 on, respectively, increasing productivity in RTB cropping systems through nutrient/water/light management practices and developing integrated decision and management tools for RTB crops. As part of an ecological and physiological understanding of RTB crops and cropping systems, output 2 will pay particular attention to the gender roles in the different systems—for example, the importance of small‐scale mixed plantings in home gardens or food security plots away from the house managed by women. It will also characterize abiotic constraints and cultural practices that have tradeoffs for yield in relation to men’s and women’s needs. For example, dual‐purpose systems involve tradeoffs between food and feed, between harvesting roots for household consumption, or feed for animals that will later be sold. Increasing productivity in RTB cropping systems through nutrient/water/light management practices in output 2 will involve assessments of the likely access of women, men, and children to productivity gains in different cropping systems. This is partly about increasing the capacity of women to manage household food security and the need to address problems of poor soils and water stresses often found in small‐scale, women‐managed plots in upland areas, home gardens, and peri‐urban locations. But it is also about targeting systems where productivity gains can result in equitable access by women to increased income. The aim of output 3 to use integrated decision and management tools to identify wide recommendation domains has a strong gender dimension in both the design of the tools and in their scaling‐up and ‐out. The mapping exercises planned for this output will include a gendered understanding of the resources available to farmers in different systems and to ensure that women are well represented in on‐farm trials to capture the “wide range of farmer conditions” required to validate technologies. The specific gender‐responsive research approaches will include natural resources management and systems analysis (Njenga et al. 2011). These will support an adequate gender audit of the different types of systems where RTB crops are important. Theme 6: Promoting postharvest technologies, value chains, and market opportunities The gender‐relevant dimension of this theme focuses on developing clear and sound pathways to enhance food security and improve income generation for poverty reduction. In many parts of the world women play a major role as producers and processors of RTB, yet their access to resources and opportunities to be able to move from subsistence agriculture to higher value chains is often much lower than men’s. In addition, as market opportunities for RTB improve, there will often be a shift to large‐scale production systems. This transition is important to increase overall food availability and food security, and make RTB crops cost‐competitive compared to other ingredients for agro‐processors. However, in such systems, there is a risk of displacing women from the production and/or marketing systems. At the same time, focusing uniquely on women—and excluding men—can backfire, undermining women’s ability to participate. Ongoing gender analysis and monitoring is required, with research still needed on how to ensure market development with adequate gender equity (Rubin, Nichols‐Barrett, and Manfre 2010). A gender strategy is relevant also for addressing the output on policies and strategies to enhance consumption of RTB, at two levels. Policy development will emphasize the role of women in


consumption choices and policy prescriptions for targeted nutrition education campaigns that work with women’s groups and associations, and that can be delivered by extension services and health providers. Marketing and nutrition education efforts need to directly work with such groups. Through the CRP‐RTB we will encourage gender balance in RTB research‐for‐development teams and capacity development of core team members and local partners in gender‐sensitive, value chain research. Work in Theme 6 will stimulate innovation, factoring in gender perspectives, and develop practical tools to foster women’s participation in decision‐making processes. It will favor the introduction of technologies that will be managed in ways that are not gender blind or do not affect women negatively in their traditional roles. We will give strong emphasis to collective action initiatives, such as enterprise associations with strong participation by women. Theme 7: Enhancing impact through partnerships This theme has cross‐cutting relevance for all other themes, and as part of its responsibilities for targeting and setting priorities, building effective partnerships, strengthening communication and knowledge sharing, guiding capacity‐strengthening strategies, and leading work on outcome and impact assessment. It will also monitor the way that gender issues are integrated into the substantive, technical areas of the CRP. For example, as part of targeting and priority setting, this theme will undertake specific in‐depth studies on the significance of RTB in combined farming systems, considering levels of poverty and vulnerability and gender‐specific roles in production, processing, marketing, and consumption. Results of these studies will be shared and validated in stakeholder consultations. This will guide a pro‐active approach to develop relevant agricultural technology that responds to the specific needs of poor farmers and other vulnerable groups (e.g., women and young children, minority groups) and performs well in the ecologies in which they farm and under the management they can apply within an evolving development environment. Priority setting within what this theme characterizes as the partnership learning cycle builds continuously on evidence provided by ex‐post impact assessment. In this feedback process, special attention will be given to anticipating gender‐related effects and including other metrics such as Disability Adjusted Life Years for nutrition interventions. Communication and knowledge sharing, which is one of the outputs of Theme 7, will use the gender e‐platform proposed to be established throughout the CGIAR, to provide access to gender analysis tools and learning opportunities. Outcome and impact assessment will, among other things, measure the impact of research on RTB on the livelihoods of the poor, identifying a set of outcome and impact indicators to create a plausible theory of change with stakeholders. This is linked with first‐order, gender‐disaggregated impact indicators that include (1) technology adoption; (2) crop yields, area, and production; (3) changes in practices and level of inputs; (4) changes in production costs and profitability; and (5) changes in attitudes and risks faced by women and men farmers. As part of the gender strategy it is proposed to develop some additional first order, gender‐responsive indicators, relating for example to changes in access to agricultural resources and changes in participation in production, marketing, and processing activities. Second‐order longer term impacts include changes in welfare of sex‐disaggregated producers and consumers due to income, asset accumulation, and price effects; changes in consumption, food, and nutritional security; distributional impacts as well as changes in resource management and environmental conditions; and other spillover and indirect economy‐wide effects.


4. Impact Pathways and Gender

Gender is implicitly included at the level of research‐and‐development outcomes, leading to explicit improvements in gender equity as an impact in the overall impact pathway description (Fig. 1). Of the five impacts identified in the overall impact pathway for this CRP, more resilient farming and food systems, improved food security, and better incomes from RTB will all have gender significance, because of the gender‐responsive components of the different themes and activities discussed above. There is also a specific expected impact involving improved gender equity and improved small farmer organizations through RTB innovation systems. The CRP will apply participatory impact pathway analysis (PIPA) methodology with stakeholders to ensure engagement and close monitoring of progress towards this impact.

Figure 1 CRPRTB themes and their anticipated outcomes and impacts.

5. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System and Gender

The M&E system is built on four pillars, two of which explicitly include gender considerations: 1. Program monitoring: overall supervision of program activities, especially cross‐cutting

elements such as gender mainstreaming, conducted by the program management. 2. Performance monitoring: against the products and milestones listed in Annex 2 of the CRP‐

RTB proposal, conducted by implementing partners against performance contracts. 3. Outcome and impact measurement: referring to the foreseen outcomes and related impacts,

which will be managed through Theme 7 (the gender components of which are discussed above).

4. Financial and due diligence monitoring: against program budget, conducted by the Lead Center.


The CRP‐RTB will set up an M&E system to track completion of the milestones that are indicated in the product line description tables in Annex 2 of the proposal (pillar 2 above). Gender, which at present is not fully incorporated into these tables because of the very tight deadlines faced by the teams developing the annex, will be included in this fuller M&E system and gender‐mainstreaming indicators will be developed for this purpose. In addition, as the performance contracts come into operation and CRPs are held accountable for research outcomes, gender indicators will be integrated into the M&E system. Each performance contract will include a clear M&E reporting framework that will feed into the overall program M&E set‐up. Program partners and other stakeholders will be included in the M&E system to assess progress towards completion of outcomes and particular care will be given to capturing the gender dimension of variables for monitoring. A key component of this participatory M&E process will be gender feedback. How well is progress being made in relation to gender‐responsive indicators? Are midcourse corrections needed, is capacity strengthening needed to ensure that gender‐related outcomes and impacts are met? The M&E system will be a crucial tool for the project director, the Management Committee, and stakeholders to track progress and take corrective action, and for reporting.

6. Budget

The aggregated character of the CRP‐RTB budget presentation and the lack of clarity about the financial resources that could be available for the CRP if it is approved both prevented inclusion of a specific reference to assignment of funds to the gender strategy in the proposal document. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that both within this CRP and at the level of the CGIAR Consortium, there is sufficient political will to ensure that this strategy will be implemented. Through budgeting, through pooling of skills and resources across the Centers involved in the CRP, through collaboration with other CRPs, and through seeking short‐term, small‐scale additional external funding, we will ensure that the necessary expertise is available during the inception phase of the CRP to put the strategy in place. These and other tactics such as training of trainers, visiting fellowships, and internships will be then be used for implementation.

7. References

Arce, B., G. Prain, and L. Maldonado. 2009. Urban agriculture and gender in Carapongo, Lima, Peru. In Women Feeding Cities: Mainstreaming gender in urban agriculture and food security, A. Hovorka, H. de Zeeuw, and M. Njenga (eds.), Rugby: Practical Action.

Conlago, M., F. Montesdeoca, M. Mayorga, F. Yumisaca, I. Antezana, and J.L. Andrade‐Piedra. 2009. Gender Relationships in Production and Commercialization of Potato Seed with Small‐Scale Farmers in the Central Andes of Ecuador. Paper presented at the 15th Triennial International Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC). Lima, November 2–7, 2009.

Farnworth, C.R., and J. Jiggins. 2003. Participatory plant breeding and gender analysis. PPB monograph 4. Cali: PRGA, CIAT.

Feldstein, H.S., and J. Jiggins, eds. 1994. Tools for the Field: Methodologies Handbook for Gender Analysis in Agriculture. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Fernandez, M.E. 2009. Science and Technology: Gender Analysis and Implementation. Unpublished report commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA.


Njenga, Mary, Nancy Karanja, Gordon Prain, Diana Lee‐Smith, and Michael Pigeon, 2011. Gender mainstreaming in organisational culture and agricultural research processes. Development in Practice 21(3), May 2011.

Norton, G.W., E.A. Heinrichs, G.C. Luther, and M.E. Irwin. 2005. Globalizing Integrated Pest Management: A Participatory Research Process. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‐Blackwell.

Prain, G., J. Schneider, and C. Widyastuti. 2000. Farmers’ maintenance of sweetpotato diversity in Irian Jaya. In Encouraging Diversity. The conservation and development of plant genetic resources (Almekinders and W. de Boef, eds.), 54–59. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Rubin, D., K. Nichols‐Barrett, and C. Manfre. 2010. Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities: Why it Matters for Agricultural Value Chains. USAID Handbook. Washington, DC: USAID.

Vietnam National IPM Program. 2011. Field Guild on Gender and IPM. FAO‐IPM Hanoi; Plant Protection Department, MARD; Center for Family and Women’s Studies. Hanoi, Vietnam.

roots, ubers, bananas for food security and incomecipotato.org/wp-content/uploads/publication...

Documents