Transcript Filling the Gender Data Gap in Agriculture and Rural Development Importance of GDD    Human input/energy crucial to agricultural production & rural development Data on rural.

Filling the Gender Data Gap in
Agriculture and Rural
Development
1
Importance of GDD



Human input/energy crucial to agricultural
production & rural development
Data on rural producers (esp. women) still
marginally relevant in policy-making
More effective planning through better
statistical representation
2
Collecting GDD

Different situations of men & women
along socioeconomic lines

Specific contributions to economy

Consequence of roles
3
Need for:


More accurate statistics
Data more relevant to needs & concerns of
data users and producers
4
Censuses & Surveys
Must adequately address gender
differentiation in:

Land ownership and use

Access to credit

Labour & time use

Training & extension services

Technology access

Income
5
Statistics Users:

Planners & decision-makers

Development experts

NGOs

General public

Gender equity advocates

Others
6
Producing GDD:

Identify gender issues for special
treatment

Identify gender-relevant data

Review existing data sources


Improve existing sources/develop new
programmes
Compile, analyse, present, disseminate
data
7
Main Information Sources

Censuses (agricultural, population,

Surveys (farm, rural, employment, food

Time-use studies
housing)
consumption, household
income/expenditure)
8
GDD Constraints

Lack of reliable sources

Lack of precision

Inadequate concepts/definitions

Weak analysis

Weak dissemination system

Lack of audience analysis

Competition with other priorities
9
Use of sex-disaggregated data
Used to better reflect the contribution of men and women, to
agricultural activities and the gender dimension of agricultural
resource allocation and access to services such as:
 area of holding,
 cropping patterns,
 access to credit and other services,
 use of different agricultural practices.
 etc..
10
Weaknesses in holder concept for reflecting gender
dimension to agricultural activities
The concept of an agricultural holder as the major decisionmaker for the holding may not be enough to provide a realistic
picture of the often complex decision-making processes of the
holding.
Often, different members of the household take responsibility
for managing particular aspects of the operations of the
holding. Sometimes, women carry out specific activities such
as cultivating particular land plots or managing particular
livestock activities.
There may also be different levels of management; for
example, one person may make the strategic decisions (“this
year we plant potatoes”), while other people are responsible
for operational decisions such as when to plant, who to
employ, and how to market.
11
Concepts of Sub-holding and Sub-holder
The concepts of sub-holding and sub-holder are introduced to
address this issue.
A sub-holding is a group of agricultural activities on the
holding managed by a particular person in the holder’s
household.
A sub-holder is a person responsible for managing a subholding. This concept is similar to the concept of “plot
manager” and “farm operator” used in some countries.
Data on sub-holding and sub-holders are recommended for
inclusion in the supplementary component of the agricultural
census
12
Data items recommended
For each holding


Identification of sub-holdings.
Identification of sub-holders .
For each sub-holding




Sex of sub-holder .
Age of sub-holder.
Area of crops managed for each crop group.
Number of livestock managed for each livestock group.
13
14
Number of agricultural households and %
Female headed by region
15
EXAMPLE: BURKINA FASO
under-representation of women farmers’ work
Area cultivated / crop by sex of agricultural holder and sub-holder
Holder
(Collective fields)
Sub-Holder
(Individual fields)
Crops
Millet
Maize
Rice
Groundnuts
Vouandzou
White sorghum
Red sorghum
(sub) Total
M
97
99
98
97
96
98
97
98
F
3
1
2
3
4
2
3
2
M
45
90
65
32
20
58
55
48
F
55
10
35
68
80
42
45
52
Both
(All fields)
M
F
87
13
89
11
85
15
54
46
50
50
90
10
91
9
86
14
16
EXAMPLE: TANZANIA
Female HoHH face greater labour constraints
Average number of male active members per sex of Head of Household
Selected
regions
Dodoma
Mtwara
Iringa
Mbeya
Mara
Tanzania
Average nbr. active male adults by sex of HoHH
Male HoHH
Female HoHH
1.1
0.3
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.2
1.1
0.3
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.4
17
TANZANIA
Gender differences in credit use & source:
Percent
Male-headed HHs: credit > fertiliser & agro-chemicals
Female–headed HHs: credit > hired labour & seed purchase
30
Chart 7.5 Percent of Households that have access to Credit by sex of
Household Head - TANZANIA
20
10
0
Labour
Use of Credit
18
Seeds
Fertili zers
Agro-che
micals
Tools / Irrigation Livestock
Other
Equip
Structures
ment
Male Headed
Female Headed
Male-headed HHs  credit mainly from cooperative unions
Female-headed HHs  credit mainly from family / friends and
relatives
Male sub-holder: Area under individual management
per type of acquisition at national level - NIGER
2%
10%
NIGER – access to
land by sex of farmer
– LAND ACQUISITION
1%
2%
Inherited
Purchased
9%
Share-cropping
Loan
Gift
76%
Land under individual
management
(by individual farmer /
active HH member)
Other
Female sub-holder: Area under individual
management per type of acquisition at national level,
NIGER
12%
1%
35%
Inherited
Purchased
Share-cropping
Loan
3%
48%
1%
Gift
Other
19
NIGER:
Access to animals
Distribution of sedentary animals by type of animal, by sex of
the owner - NIGER
cattle
sheep
goats
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
77.7 %
22.3 %
60.3 %
39.7 %
45.5 %
54.5 %
Source: RGAC 2004-2007, Niger
20
FOOD INSECURITY/POVERTY INDICATOR TANZANIA
Chart 9.4 Percent of Male and Female Headed
Households by Frequency of Facing Food Shortages
Percent of Households
50
40
A higher percent maleheaded HHs never has
food shortage.
30
A higher percent of
female-headed HHs
has often or always
food shortages.
20
10
0
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Frequency of Food S hortage
Often
Male
Always
Female
21
22
THANK YOU
23