Gender and development People

Posted February 1998

Gender and Participation in Agricultural Development Planning

2. Comparative analysis of the case studies


Introduction | Key issues: 1. Overview / 2. Analysis of case studies: policy environment - entry point - tools & methods - capacity building - gender information - linkages - institutionalisation / 3. Best practices / Annex-Bibliography | Download documents

SIX of the ten projects represented at this workshop were designed with the goal of influencing the responsiveness of some level of agricultural planning to the priorities of women and men farmers (Namibia, Nepal, Ethiopia, India, Tunisia, Costa Rica) [1]. The Honduras case also had important policy impacts in its later phases. The remaining projects (Pakistan, Senegal, Afghanistan), though not focused on influencing planning, used participatory and gender-sensitive methods that contribute to our analysis of what works, how, and why.

This section analyses the factors that affected project outcomes, both successes and problems. It uses the analytical categories (entry point, tools, capacity building, gender information, linkages, and institutionalisation) that all case writers incorporated in their studies.

Project goals, approaches, methods, and tools

The goal of most projects was to increase the responsiveness of agricultural planning and policy making to the priorities of men and women farmers, including and focusing on those with few resources. In most cases the goal reflected national policy directives to increase the participation of farmers and other local stakeholders in planning, and to make sure that women's interests were reflected in plans and policies. Thus the projects were attempting to facilitate the realisation of a goal shared by national policy-makers.

The approach chosen was to demonstrate the relevance and usefulness to agricultural planning of participatory, gender-sensitive, and socio-economic difference-sensitive participatory methods. Some projects also tried to strengthen the constituency for gender-responsive planning by working to strengthen women's groups. Most trained local staff in the methods and tools used.

Methods varied by project, but most included gender analysis (GA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) or MARP (methode acceleree de recherche participative). Some projects formed socio-economically similar and gender-specific focus groups so that PRA tools could be used separately not only by men and women, but by poor men, young women, and so forth.

Tools associated with these methods were either: i) chosen from those already described in the literature, ii) combined (gender analysis tools, for example, were incorporated into PRA tools), or iii) adapted to reflect local situations and focus group differences. In some cases, new tools were invented, reflecting the fact that PRA and GA tools are rapidly evolving. Specific tools used will be cited in the "tools" sub-section below.

We turn now to the analysis of the case studies:


Introduction | Key issues: 1. Overview / 2. Analysis of case studies / Annex-Bibliography | Download documents

Back to Top FAO Homepage