Gender and institutional aspects of climate-smart agricultural in Kenya, Uganda and Senegal Patti Kristjanson World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) ‘Does Gender Matter in Climate Change Adaptation’ Session, Tues Aug 11 10 am
Gender and institutional aspects of climate-smart agricultural in Kenya, Uganda and Senegal Patti Kristjanson World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)
‘Does Gender Matter in Climate Change Adaptation’ Session, Tues Aug 11 10 am
Patti Kristjanson
CCAFS-‐ini)ated intra-‐household gender-‐climate change study in Kenya (2 sites), Uganda (2 sites), Senegal, Bangladesh (Kovarik), Colombia (Twyman)
Builds on ILRI’s comprehensive, plot-‐level farm characteriza)on survey : hLps://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/CCAFSbaseline
Same ques)ons of man (n=200) and woman (n=200) in each household/site
One key objec)ve: Understand the differences in awareness and adop*on of CSA prac)ces by men and women
The ‘what’
Patti Kristjanson
The IFPRI/CIAT/ICRAF/ILRI-‐developed intra-‐household gender and CC-‐focused modules include:
Preferences and use of agricultural and climate informa)on Access to credit Decision-‐making Group membership Risk management Adapta)on strategies/prac)ces Climate smart prac)ces Percep)ons of climate change Impacts of climate change Values and cogni)ve processes
Research with: Q. Bernier, C. Kovarik, E. Bryan, E. Haglund, R. Meinzen-‐Dick, C. Quiros, C. Ringler, M. Rufino, S. Silvestri, J. Twyman. Survey leaders: Edidah Ampaire, Joash Mango, Yacine Ndourba, Piet Van Asten. Available at: hLps://thedata.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/CCAFSbaseline
Components
Patti Kristjanson
This presenta)on focuses on the following sites: Nyando, western Kenya; Wote, central-‐Eastern Kenya; Rakai, south-‐central Uganda; Kaffrine, southern Peanut Basin, Senegal; (200 women, 200 men), each site ≈ 1600 individuals For adapta>on planning, to address the following ques)ons:
Are individuals aware of different agricultural (including climate-‐smart) prac*ces? And if so, have they adopted them?
If respondents report having observed changes in climate, have they made changes in their agricultural prac*ces to protect themselves, their families, or their communi)es? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Bernier, Kristjanson, Meinzen-‐Dick. In process. Gender and ins>tu>onal factors influencing men’s and women’s awareness and uptake of climate smart agricultural prac>ces in Kenya, Uganda and Senegal
The ‘where’ and ‘why’
Patti Kristjanson
What practices?
Longer-‐term benefits – more transforma>ve changes • Agroforestry • Terraces and bunds • Water harves)ng • Irriga)on • Plan)ng pits • Minimum )llage • Improved feed management • Grazing or rangeland management Short-‐term benefits – more incremental changes • Crop Residue Mulching • Compos)ng • Livestock manure management • More efficient fer)lizer use • Improved, high-‐yielding varie)es • Stress tolerant varie)es • Destocking • Cover cropping • Switch to drought tolerant livestock • Integrated pest management
Patti Kristjanson
Response to CC by men and women: Kenya
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Soil and water conserva)on
Change crop variety
Change plan)ng date
Change crop type
Water harves)ng
Plan)ng trees on farm
Women Nyando (n=56)
Men Nyando (n=99)
Women Wote (n=96)
Men Wote (n=137)
Patti Kristjanson
Response to CC by men and women: Uganda
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Plan)ng trees on farm
Increase land planted
Change crop type
Change crop variety
Change plan)ng dates
Water harves)ng
Soil and water conserva)on
Food storage
Women Rakai (n=125)
Men Rakai (n=127)
Patti Kristjanson
Analysis addresses the ques)ons: What helps explain awareness of the different pracSces? If aware, what influences adopSon? Heckman 2-‐stage model: 1st stage: Probability of Awareness = fn (age, sex, access to info sources, land size, assets, spouse awareness, mo)va)ons) 2nd stage: Adop>on = fn (land ownership, decision-‐making power, innova)veness, group memberships, trust, gender decision-‐making, educa)on, age, assets, credit access, farm & off-‐farm income, climate info access, climate shock experience)
Methods
Patti Kristjanson
Extension agents – surprisingly limited influence, especially on long-‐term prac)ces: Kaffrine-‐improved varie)es, fert, manure mgment, agroforestry; Rakai-‐no )ll; Wote-‐water harves)ng, irriga)on Agri-‐service providers – Kaffrine: seeds, fert, no )ll, manure mgment Farmers’ organiza>ons – Kaffrine: terraces So, conven)onal sources of agricultural and climate-‐related informa)on are not yet significantly increasing awareness of CSA prac*ces
Key findings - Awareness
Patti Kristjanson
Radio – Kaffrine-‐ irriga)on, agroforestry, fert, manure mgment; Wote-‐irriga)on, compost; Nyando-‐compost Cellphones s)ll not helping increase awareness of CSA prac)ces If your spouse is aware, are you? For most prac)ces in Kaffrine, yes; but this is the case for only a few prac)ces in the Kenya sites
Key findings – Awareness, cont’d
Patti Kristjanson
land tenure – surprisingly not showing up as important share of off-‐farm income – nega)ve influence on some prac)ces female credit access – posi)ve influence on uptake of fer)lizer: Nyando; water harves)ng, irriga)on, manure: Wote; impr seeds, compost: Rakai female % assets – posi)ve influence on uptake of compos)ng, crop residues: Wote; agroforestry, water harves)ng: Rakai; water harves)ng: Kaffrine
Key findings – Adoption
Patti Kristjanson
Innova>veness – associated with water harves)ng: Nyando; terracing: Wote; terracing, irriga)on, HYV’s, fer)lizer: Rakai Able to make decisions – agroforestry: Rakai; no )ll: Wote Group memberships – compost: Nyando; water harves)ng, HYVs: Rakai; crop residues: Kaffrine
Key findings - Adoption, cont’d
Patti Kristjanson
Implications - 1
Awareness of CSA opportuni>es is important but insufficient to date, so it will be key to support to projects and programs that: • link local radio and TV sta>ons and providers of agricultural
knowledge and climate informa>on • Work with farmer’s and other groups (e.g. religious groups,
women’s groups) and agri-‐service providers to beLer reach women • Support agricultural knowledge
plaWorms that bring together these various groups and take advantage of new ICT-‐based opportuni>es (via cellphones, television (e.g. Shamba Shape Up), social media)
• Support innova>ve farmer-‐led learning and ag extension approaches
Patti Kristjanson
Implications - 2
Adop>on of improved prac>ces remains low in large part due to ins*tu*onal challenges facing all food system actors, but women farmers in par)cular – con)nuing an)-‐women biases in ag services and informa)on; lack of suppor)ng infrastructure, and collec)ve ac)on challenges in general (not just gender norms) There has been a lot more investment in technologies than there has been in ins*tu*ons (e.g. land rights for women), policies, capacity, innova)ve communica)on approaches, etc
Patti Kristjanson
Implications - 3
Its )me for new research approaches that reach, and learn together with, more farmers, especially women (e.g. text-‐based targeted ques)ons, crowdsourcing, farmer-‐led innova)on approaches, etc)
Patti Kristjanson
Bernier, Kristjanson, Meinzen-‐Dick. In process. Gender and ins>tu>onal factors influencing men’s and women’s awareness and uptake of climate smart agricultural prac>ces in Kenya, Uganda and Senegal Bernier et al. 2015. Ins>tu>ons and Gender in the Adop>on of Climate Smart Agriculture: Evidence from Kenya. CCAFS Working Paper No. 79. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org Silvestri et al. 2015. Households and food security: Lessons from food secure households in East Africa. Agriculture and Food Security, forthcoming. Douxchamps et al. 2015. Linking agricultural adapta>on strategies, food security and vulnerability: Evidence from West Africa. Regional Environmental Change, forthcoming. Jost et al. 2015. Understanding Gender Dimensions of Agriculture and Climate Change in Smallholder Farming Communi>es. Climate and Development. Open access. Perez et al. 2015. How resilient are farming households, communi>es, men and women to a changing climate in Africa? Global Environmental Change. Wood et al. 2014. Smallholder farmer cropping decisions related to climate variability across mul>ple regions. Global Environmental Change, 25, 163-‐172. Open access.
Additional resources