Transcript Gender Analysis in Agriculture Punjab

GENDER ANALYSIS
IN AGRICULTURE
PUNJAB - PAKISTAN
Field Insights – 11-13 May 2011
Linda Pennells IASC GenCap Adviser
Activity
‘Quick capture’ of gender good practice and field insights:
 Multan orientation and tool revision.
 IP and beneficiary discussions – Ali Pur
 IP and beneficiary discussions – Bootaywala
Objectives
 Contribute field insight into 3-week Pakistan mission.
 Demonstrate field-friendliness and value of practical tools.
 Identify a sampling of relevant gender issues with FAO/WFP team.
 Contribute to toolkit for the FAO-led AFSSWG livelihoods
assessment.
Focus
 The roles of men and women in rice and wheat production.
 Gender lessons learned in farm equipment distributed in
EU-funded Food Facility Project.
 Gender in local irrigation.
Facilitators
 Jam Khalid / Abida Begum – equipment (35 min).
 Jam Khalid / Abida Begum - rice (20 min).
 Jamil Amir – wheat (20 min).
 Irrigation – short episodes totalling 30 minutes.
Rice Production - Bootaywala
Men
& Boys
Time invested
by males
Preparing seedbed

3-4 hr
men
Planting in nursery

.5 hr
men
Weeding in nursery

.5 hr
men
Input purchase

10 min-2days
men
Land/soil preparation – with tractor

8 hr
men
Fertilizing

4 hr
men
Weeding

1 hr
Pest control

Hand harvesting (cutting)

4 days
Combine harvesting

1 hr
Activity
Transplanting
Women
& Girls
Time invested by
females
Who makes
decisions?

40 hr
men

1 hr
men
men

6 days
men
men
Threshing (by hand)

10 days
(2 x 5 days)
men
Selecting healthy seeds for next planting

15-20 min
men
Putting grain into storage

14 hr
men
Cleaning/fumigating storage

5 min per yr
men
De-husking at mill
Selling/bartering of rice


6 hr
men
10min-2days
men
Grinding (flour)/cleaning (rice) for home use

5-10 min/day
women
Baking/food preparation

30 min/day
women
Bootaywala – community feedback
 Women invest 2 or 3 hours for every hour invested by men in rice
production (determinant: combine or not).
 Gender gap in decision-making: not reflect M-F input.
 Rice is a ‘partnership’ crop: males and females share some
roles but have distinct skills/knowledge in rice production.
 Conflict or disaster that causes family separation can
jeopardize yield.
 Vital analysis for projects focusing on local rice production:
o what do male and female farmers do, what time to they invest in the crop,
what are their different skills and coping methods;
o how does rice work factor into men’s and women’s other productive,
reproductive and community work.
The Bootaywala Sources
Equipment Distribution - Bootaywala
Type of Machinery and
Equipment distributed in
EU Food Facility Project
Primary Users
Male
Potential to
increase yield
Female
Reduces
workload
Male
Storage bin for seed grain


Jab planter (manual)


Maize sheller (motorized)


Reduces loss
Rice de-huller
(mechanized)


Increases
profit
Power tiller (15 hp)


Increases yield
Wheat seed drill
(tractor driven)


Increases
yield
Female
Increases
workload
Male
Female
1 hr
20 hr
5 hr
30 min
7 hr
2.75 hr
30 min
159 hr
(150 reaping &
9 hand
digging)
Bootaywala Equipment Feedback
 The six pieces of FAO farm equipment saves women 183 hr but
increases men’s work by about 4 hr per acre.
 Equipment changes gender roles: power tiller/maize sheller.
 Gender gap in mechanization and learning. Focus of women’s
learning: separate seed and grain storages and using 1 hand tool.
Men’s learning focus: operating, maintaining and minor repair of
4 pieces of mechanized equipment.
 Power equipment for men – hand-operated for women.
 Gender gap in decision-making: not reflect M-F partnership.
 Demonstrates need to identify who will be impacted how when farm
equipment selected: the positive serendipity of results in this
community can not be assumed. Up-front gender analysis is needed.
 This gender analysis identified ‘invisible’ project results.
Gender in irrigation
 Water User Groups – all men – registered landowners
 Irrigation water is used on crops (mainly rice and wheat) in
which community members confirm that women do about 2/3 of
the farm labour : a representation gap
 Need for holistic approach: water for all food crops, including
home gardens, fruit and nut trees etc.
 Opportunities for partnership exist e.g. FAO-IOM collaboration
to provide kitchen garden drip irrigation toolkits on USAID
project
 Creative options needed: irrigation hoses to link canal water to
home gardens; drip toolkits; synergistic or linked irrigation and
domestic water projects
Other insights: Bootaywala/Ali Pur
 Women Open Schools (WOS) are Farmer Field Schools for
women: merit renaming to recognize women as farmers.
 Farm women express need for WOS curriculum expansion:
beyond home gardening to include livestock & key cash crops.
 Good WFP analysis supported synergistic livelihoods skills of
men and women in smallholder and tenant farm families:
o e.g. Mix of goat share-cropping (F), day labour (M-F),
farming (M-F) and irrigation management (M).
 Local feminization of agricultural day labour – lowest pay –
men have higher-paid options, women often do not.
Bootaywala /Ali Pur
[cont’d]
 Gender analysis signals a too-high ‘opportunity cost’ if there is a push
to expand cotton acreage for export earnings.
o *women: 30-40 days weeding per acre in 5-month cycle.
o *men: 14 hr land levelling by hand so irrigation water reaches all plants.
 Toxic pesticide risk highest for male sprayers and female cotton
pickers and vegetable growers (Not an FAO issue as FAO does IPM).
 For every 10 hr local men invest in wheat production, women invest 8
– not exclusively a ‘men’s crop’! Men’s roles centre on mechanization
and mobility.
 Child labour appears higher than politically-conscious project partners
admit – gender dynamics warrant exploring.
 Social barriers exist for women in market access and economic
migration but the ‘door is not closed’ – explore what women want to do
and feel they can negotiate social sanction to do.
Conclusions - Identify
Practical gender analysis can help identify the important
realities of women compared to men:
 who should be consulted/involved and why.
 who has skills, knowledge and potentially solutions to offer.
 who needs extension service, training, farm inputs and
resources.
 the impact of distribution (equipment, livestock & crop inputs).
 the comparative opportunity cost of males & females.
Conclusions - Benefits
Benefits:
 FAO team inspired to create 8 more practical tools for field
use and use by IPs.
 FAO Pakistan rethinks implement distribution to women
farmers.
 Field analysis triggers active discussion on the Gender
Marker – relevance is seen as are practical ways of building
gender into projects.
 Contributed to incorporating gender into Pakistan’s Detailed
Livelihoods Assessment.