Integrating Gender across Research Programs

Ruth Meinzen-Dick

Partnering for Impact: IFPRI-European Research Collaboration for Improved Food and Nutrition Security November 25, 2013Brussels

The path of gender research at IFPRI

Early gender

and intrahousehold

research

Gender Task

Force

Research program

on gender

and assets

Photo credit: Akram Ali/CARE Bangladesh Strengthening the Dairy Value Chain (SDVC) project

IFPRI’s Gender Task Force

Established in 2004

One senior and one junior researcher from each research division

One representative from Communications

One representative from each regional office

Meets every 3 months

Indeed, the evidence suggests that it is time to shift the burden of proof.

Instead of having to establish why gender is relevant to a certain IFPRI research project, project leaders

ought to reflect why gender might not be important if they have chosen not to address it. This is not to say that gender is a necessary component in all of

IFPRI’s research but that we should always ask ourselves whether our research can be strengthened by paying attention to gender and what the different

implications of our research may be for men and women.

Director General Joachim Von Braun, email to IFPRI staff, 2005

• Inclusion of gender in a project is optional for project leaders

• Researchers interested in incorporating gender asked Ruth Meinzen-Dick or Agnes Quisumbing

• New staff given no guidance on gender in research design

• Communications and outreach on gender research was limited

• If gender is not included in a project, project leaders should explain why

• Gender Task Force serves as informational body for researchers with focal points within divisions and country offices

• New staff instructed in importance of incorporating gender in research design and pointed towards resources during orientation

• Blogs, newsletters and other communication strategies to highlight gender research are developed

The Results

Before After

Gender and Assets

• Jointly led by IFPRI and ILRI• Evaluating 8 projects in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia • Objectives:

• Identify how development projects impact men's and women’s assets.• Clarify which strategies have been successful in reducing gender gaps in

asset access, control and ownership.• Improve partner organization's abilities to measure and analyze qualitative

and quantitative gender and assets data in their Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) plans for current and future projects.

The GAAP portfolio

The Tools to End Poverty

GAAP case study: Land O’Lakes, Mozambique

• Land O’Lakes Smallholder Dairy Development Program in Mozambique • Started in 2006• In early stages of the program, not all household members were positively benefitting from the intervention

• Program began requiring that two household members were trained in dairy production instead of one

– But this actually proved problematic! It was adding to women’s workload even though the women didn’t own the cow or control the income from the cows. Some women intentionally neglected the cows.

GAAP case study continued…

• Enter GAAP – Along with the Mozambique team, they collected data, facilitated focus group discussion and designed a monitoring and evaluation system

• A new game plan:– Register cows given to household to at least one male and one female

adult– Organize and train groups of farmers on gender relations and promote

women’s leadership– Register both male and female adults in marketing cooperative – Include women in the cooperative management committee

• Results:– More women own livestock, are more involved in making decisions about

management of that livestock, and more women market milk and make income from its sale

Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)

• Developed in 2012 with Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), USAID

• Collected in 19 Feed the Future countries

• Other organizations adapted WEAI for their own programs– Care, Oxfam, IFAD, ILRI

• Diagnosing sources of disempowerment, correlates with nutrition, other outcomes

Household hunger scaleHouseholds experiencing moderate or severe hunger (score of 2 - 6)

Legend: Asia; Latin America & Caribbean; East Africa; West Africa; Southern Africa*Households with less than 2,122 and 1,805 kcal/person/day

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.000

10

20

30

40

50

60

BANGLADESH*

CAMBODIA

GHANA

HAITI

HONDURAS

KENYA

LIBERIAMALAWI

NEPAL

RWANDA

TAJIKISTAN

UGANDAZAMBIA

WEAI Score

Prev

alen

ce o

f hou

seho

lds w

ith m

oder

ate

or se

vere

hun

ger,

%

* Please note – these findings are preliminary

Minimum Acceptable DietChildren 6-23 months receiving MAD

Legend: Asia; Latin America & Caribbean; East Africa; West Africa; Southern Africa

0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

BANGLADESH

CAMBODIA

GHANA

HAITI

HONDURAS

KENYA

LIBERIA

MALAWI

NEPAL

RWANDA

TAJIKISTAN

UGANDAZAMBIA

WEAI Score

Child

ren

achi

evin

g m

inim

um a

ccep

tabl

e di

et, %

* Please note – these findings are preliminary

Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) gender survey

• Draws on IFPRI-ZEF-Hohenheim U project on gender and climate change to develop methods

• 4 countries: Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, Bangladesh• Research questions:

– How might men and women in rural areas be (differentially) affected by long-run climate change and short-term climate shocks?

– What are the characteristics and causes of gender differentials in vulnerability/resilience to weather-related risk (e.g. assets, information, empowerment in decision-making, rights, etc.)?

– Do men and women have different perceptions of climate change and climate risk? How do perceptions of climate change, climate risk, and personal values shape adaptation decisions and approaches?

– What are the adaptation options, strategies, and approaches (individual, household, or collective) that are available to and preferred by men and women?

CCAFS Results: Kenya and Bangladesh

% aware of specific climate smart interventions and, among those aware, % adopting specific intervention. 20 interventions total.

Kenya: women somewhat less aware than men of interventions overall. However, for almost all of the interventions they are more likely to adopt if they are aware. Bangladesh: women are less aware than men for all 20 of the interventions. If aware, they are somewhat less likely to adopt.

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Percentage aware - Nyando 72.5 38 43.5 19.5 87 95 61 85.5 13.5 11.5 10 14

Percentage adopted - Nyando 21.4 38.2 24.1 61.5 67.2 91.6 82 86.5 25.9 47.8 50 42.9

Percentage aware - Bangladesh 26.4 17.8 81.2 71.3 58.6 52.8 63.6 41 6.49 1.47 6.54 1.71Percentage adopted - Bangladesh 24.5 11.0 37.7 39.6 42.4 41.2 55.1 46.1 8.3 16.7 8.3 14.3

Switching to drought tolerant varieties

Water Harvesting Composting

Leaving crop residue

Use of improved, high-yielding seeds Zai Pits

Methods• Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index• GAAP qualitative/quantitative toolkit• Gender and value chains clearinghouse• PIM and A4NH methods workshops this year• Methods to assess gender and climate change

Research• IFPRI studies• Application of our methods in other CRPs• Application by non-CGIAR organizations (e.g.

NGOs)

Impact• Understanding of differential needs of women

and men• Better programs to meet the differential needs

of women and men• Improved nutritional outcomes• Women’s empowerment