A gender-transformative approach to climate-smart agriculture
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•227 vues
Review of CCAFS’ contribution to poverty reduction, enhanced environmental resilience, improved food security, human health and nutrition for rural women.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à A gender-transformative approach to climate-smart agriculture
Similaire à A gender-transformative approach to climate-smart agriculture (20)
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
A gender-transformative approach to climate-smart agriculture
- 1. A gender-transformative approach to climate-smart agriculture
- 2. • 79% of economically active women in developing countries report agriculture as their primary economic activity • Rural women play an increasing role in smallholder agriculture as males migrate to urban centres • They have less access than men to productive resources: finances, assets, energy, information, services • Women in 2/3 of countries globally report being food-insecure • Closing the gender gap will increase yields by 20-30% and raise agricultural outputs by 2.5 – 4 %, reducing hungry by 12-17% The gender gap in agriculture: Fewer resources, greater workload
- 3. • Globally, and with few exceptions, rural women fare worse than rural men, and urban women and men, on every gender and development indicator for which data are available - FAO • More dependent /closer to natural resources • Natural disasters and subsequent impacts tend to kill more women than men and women at earlier age than men • Climate change will exacerbate existing gender inequalities - IPCC The gender gap in climate change: Women are more vulnerable
- 4. • Gender differences exist in vulnerabilities and capacities to deal with climate change impacts • Women and men are changing cropping practices in response to climate variability, with different impacts on access to and control of the income from crops, as well as workloads • Women are less likely to buy micro-insurance if risk is low-probability, while men are likely to buy more units of insurance (Bangladesh) • Women’s participation in REDD+ decision making is very low (Vietnam) • Women’s resilience strategies and local environmental knowledge are valuable resources for recovery and adaptation • Women may be less able to adapt because of financial or resource constraints and less access to information and extension
- 5. CCAFS Gender and Social Inclusion Flagship • Goal: to ensure that rural women benefit from CCAFS’ contribution to poverty reduction, enhanced environmental resilience, improved food security, human health and nutrition. • How: undertake research to: inform, catalyze and target climate-smart agriculture solutions to women and other vulnerable groups increase the control of women and youth over productive assets and resources, and promote their participation in decision making address the use of technologies to increase women’s production, improve their livelihoods and wellbeing, and decrease their workloads
- 6. • CSA can be beneficial for women – when they have access to information on CSA, they are just as likely (if not more so) than men to adopt the practices • However, barriers to adaptation exist: increased work loads; lower access to information and resources; sociocultural norms • Most rapid uptake of climate-resilient farming was among women whose husbands were away and not making day-to-day decisions (Nyando) Gender and climate smart agriculture: CCAFS Findings
- 7. Empowering effects of CSA
- 8. Women rice farmers in South Vietnam
- 9. CSA Technologies: Gender gaps and opportunities
- 10. CSA Technologies: Gender gaps and opportunities
- 11. Gender differences in agroforestry in Nicaragua
- 12. Activity Participation Who devotes more labor? Man Woman Pasture sowing and management Yes No Men Fertilizer and herbicide application Yes No Men Caring for animals Yes Yes Men Cut pasture Yes No Men Rotation of animals Yes No Men Managing and cleaning the equipment and utensils Yes Yes Men Feeding the animals Yes Yes Men Curing the animals and helping with birthing Yes No Men Weighing the animals and keeping records Yes No Men Milking Yes Yes Both Processing milk (cheese, cream, yogurt production) Yes Yes Women Selling animals Yes No Men Selling meat Yes Yes Men Selling processed milk products Yes Yes Women Men’s and women’s participation and labor input variations in livestock production in Los Chiles, Costa Rica (Arora and Twyman, 2017)
- 13. Gender and CSA Transformation: A Framework Global National Community Household Individual: ♂ ♀ Policy&institutional change CSAimplementation Building mechanisms to engender finance Promoting women’s leadership and decision in policy & governance at all levels Closing the gender gap with Information, institutions and services CSA, gender and social inclusion ( hypothesis: Equitable decision making improves women’s assets and empowerment) Pillars of Gender Transformation in CSA Agency and opportunitie s Technology and innovation for gender transformati onAccess to & control over resources Institutional Structures Field-based evidence on what works for gender equality and women’s empowerment
- 14. Thank you
Notes de l'éditeur
- In 2010, an estimated 66 percent of households in sub-Saharan Africa, 55 percent in South and Southeast Asia, and 31 percent in Latin America relied on collected fuelwood for cooking, with women being primarily responsible for fuelwood collection.
- Mobile phone information in India: Information through mobile phones can reduce information asymmetry between women and men farmers. Helped women farmers make more efficient use of agro-inputs: 83% of women in Biryana made use of information 70% women gained more information on CSA technologies and practices (70%) Increased their participation in HH decision making in agriculture Shamba Shakeup, It is estimated that 428,566 households made changes in their farming practices or reported increased income or food production as a result of watching the program While both male and female maize farmers benefitted from the changes that they had made on their farms, men benefitted slightly more, increasing their consumed output by 58%, women 23%; output for sale doubled for men, increased by 83% for women Women dairy farmers had greater proportional returns than men – improved their production by 59%, compared to improvement of men of 41%
- Results of the training included increased production, lower inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. Increased availability of food encouraged additional livestock production. They began to participate in HH decision making on varietal choice, crop management and post harvest management, as well as on spending decisions within the household, including for children’s education.
- Technology and Labor-productivity Constraints amongst Women Smallholders in Malawi, Murray et al 2016 Women are still using very basic technologies. Of those using irrigation methods, the vast majority were using only basic methods, i.e. watering cans
- CCAFS Studies on specific technologies have revealed gender differences. LLL in North-west India: woman farmers do not approach a male LLL owner or service provider in order to hire the service, but do the deal through one of her children or through a male relative. This is mainly due to existing gender norms in the society which constrain their participation in the public domain. Another case is micro-dosing in Zimbabwe - Microdosing involves applying a small amount of fertilizer with a seed at planting time or after emergence, to reduce the amount used, Research suggests that training increases the probability of using fertilizers as well as the adoption of microdosing, but female headed households were less likely to microdose their crops, probably due to poor access to information by women. Rice Drum-seeders in Maharashtra, India, is an example of gender differences in using and valuing a technology: Men have a greater say over how the family spends the cash and so as a result were more interested in the potential for increasing income (increase in yield) or reducing cash costs (reduction in the seed rate). Women contribute a large share of the labor for transplanting rice, much of it unpaid work on family farms. Therefore they valued labor saving aspect of the seeders significantly more.
- Results of the study : Both men and women identify food source as an important use of fruit trees and shade, reforestation, fuel, and construction material as principal uses for timber and multi-purpose trees; however, women associate reforestation with all types of trees more than men. They also name shade more frequently as a use for trees than men, although this difference is only significant for fruit trees. Additionally, women tend to identify a greater diversity of uses for the trees on their farms, than men do. Perceptions of participation in decision-making vary significantly between men and women. According to women, they participate more in decision-making on tree planting rather than tree management
- Roles are different in other parts of the region: In Costa Rica they participate in dmaking around management, even though not directly involved. In Colombia and Nicaragua, women participate in cattle management, processing and marketing, acting as care providers, feed gatherers, as well as dairy production Decision making patterns different in Colombia -- household management and finance and contribute to livestock productive and investment decisions related to livestock. Gender differences in control of income from livestock production. Men tend to control the proceeds from sale of animals and meat production while women keep the income from sale of milk products. Most of them agreed that the sale of milk is exclusively for household expenses.
- This chart shows how we combine gender transformation with climate—smart agriculture. There are four main components, that apply to all levels from household to global: 1) Building “gender evidence” in CSA: what are the gender results and differences of adoption CSA, and how do women benefit from CSA adoption? 2) Enhancing the capacity of local institutions and services, including women’s organizations, to close the gender gap through climate services, capacity development and information, and access to resources and opportunities 3) Ensuring that gender and women’s empowerment are dealt with in coordinated climate and agricultural policy, and promoting the participation and leadership of women in policy making at all levels from local to global. 4) Building mechanisms to engender finance and investment. To that, we add four pillars of gender transformation as the main pathways to ensure CSA practices and technologies benefit women : 1) Agency, leadership and decision making, 2) Access and control of resources and 3) technologies, 4) Formal and informal institutions and organizations that support women.