Table Of ContentsNext Page


Part I


Part I

Chapter one - Introduction

by Annemieke Schoemaker

During the preparation of this workshop, many people asked something like: 'Sorry, what did you say this workshop was about, gender and agricultural engineering, what do these two have to do with each bother?" A good question

Over the past decades, Women in Development, and later on Gender and Development have fortunately received more and mote attention It has been realised that development efforts have not always achieved the expected results, or that as a result of them, some groups in society (often women) have been negatively affected To date, one can find good literature, training material, project evaluations and case-studies on gender and development, gender and agriculture, and gender and specialised topics such as forestry, health issues or natural resource management However, on the topic gender and agricultural engineering, a lot less has been produced Also, this field is hampered with the stereotype that agricultural engineering is the technical science of equipment, tools and machines, and gender is about women, who usually do not deal with machines, and so these two do not match

Unfortunately is this not only a misconception, but it is also a lost opportunity, in the sense that agricultural engineering interventions could be better adopted and disseminated if they were more client-oriented which also means more gender sensitive Men and women perform different activities on the farm have different needs and priorities, and this is translated in the equipment they need Men ma, find ploughig their heaviest task and would place this number one on their list of tasks to be mechanised Women, on the contrary, might find weeding, or fetching water their most laborious task, and would prefer mechanisation efforts to concentrate on those The choice of mechanisation and technology development should be based on people's needs and priorities, with equal attention to groups with different tasks and problems.

Also, the introduction of improved agricultural engineering technologies can have different impacts on different groups in society The introduction of ploughing equipment, for example, has often resulted in the cultivation of more land per household. The women in those cases, faced an increase in their workload due to more weeding, harvesting, storing or processing But it depends on the local circumstances who in the household finally controls the increased benefits, and it is not automatic that women and men benefit equally Evaluating the impact of engineering technologies should therefore be done from the perspective of different users, and nonusers who are possibly affected by it.

To address these issues more seriously, the agricultural engineering service of FAO has for some years implemented a sub-programme in the field of gender issues. The objective of this programme is to increase awareness of agricultural engineers on gender issues, and to provide advice on how to address this issue. Also, the AGROTEC programme based in Zimbabwe, and covering six countries in the region, has addressed gender issues in its work on small holder agricultural technologies. Therefore, it was decided to organise a joint workshop on this topic in this area of the world. The workshop was on the one hand a method to increase awareness of gender among its participants, but more importantly, a place and occasion where social scientists could learn from engineers who are strongly involved in agricultural engineering projects. For example, they could see how engineers currently consider end deaf with social and gender issues The workshop was therefore an occasion to generate ideas on how FAO and other organisations should deal with gender and engineering to formulate recommendations on what agricultural engineers could do in their daily job, and what role social scientists could play in this.

Workshop Objectives and Methodology

The overall objective of the workshop was to increase attention to women as important actors in the field of agricultural engineering, by agricultural engineers working in a few selected Southern and Eastern African countries The increased attention should lead to more involvement of women in agricultural engineering activities in the work of these engineers and their organisations.

Expected Outputs of the Workshop

The main target audience were agricultural engineers who are involved in equipment design and formulation and implementation of practical (pilot) projects, and persons with a gender or women in development (WID) background.

The workshop methodology was a combination of presentations (key-note papers and country case-studies), plenary discussions and working group sessions. In addition, a 'market day' was organised where participants were able to decide on the programme and provide inputs such as presentations, organising topical discussions, watching videos and networking.

The methodology used was a combination of paper presentations, plenary discussions, working groups and a 'market day', where the programme was made up by participants. The market day methodology will be discussed under the chapter on the market day.

Abstracts of the key-note papers are presented in Chapter Two. All the papers that were prepared for the workshop are compiled in Part II of the proceedings.

Participants Expectations

During the first day of the workshop, participants were requested to make self introduction. Each participant was given four cards and required to interview another participant to fill the information on the cards regarding: Name, Organisation and Country. Profession and Expectations.

The cards on expectations were then summarised and the following were the main expectations of participants from the workshop:

TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE

AND UNDERSTANDING

GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY

DEVELOPMENT

TO GAIN SKILLS

NETWORKING

GOOD WORKSHOP

SOCIALISATION

Chapter two - Overview papers presented at the workshop

Gender and draft animal power

Juliana Rwelamira

University of Stellenbosch

South Africa

Gender is an important aspect of the farm technology problem (non-adoption, slow adoption, low utilization). Technology transfer is often hindered when intra-household dynamics are not taken into account. In many cases women will have to provide the additional labour required.

In Southern and Eastern Africa and indeed in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa, the majority (up to 80%) of farmers are women who still work in hand and hoe, thus limiting productivity and production. Technologies that enhance production, such as draft animal power (DAP) and the plough have remained inaccessible to the invisible farmer' - the woman. They are either physically inconvenient for female farmers to handle them, or they apply only to male tasks or they are too costly for female farmers to afford them.

Unless and until gender inequalities are addressed, and women are given wider control over factors of production and technologies such as DAP, food insecurity and malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa will continue and increase.

The author mentions that women are hindered in the use of animals because of socio-cultural objections by society. However, she mentions that there are successful examples, and gives key questions for animal traction projects to be considered. Also, a successful case study is the Mbeya Oxenisation Project in Tanzania, which used the following strategies:

In Mbeya Region traditional attitudes and values are changing in many fronts including the use of DAP by women.

An important conclusion is that animal traction technology must be based on the active participation of the community for whom it is intended: from the definition of problems to the selection, application and evaluation of possible solutions. Too often animal traction technology introduced to women is inappropriate because women themselves have not been consulted during design and planning. Equally important is the fact that the development and diffusion of animal traction appropriate for women major tasks require increased research funds to be allocated to food crops, food processing and transportation projects. Also, use of locally available raw materials for DAP implements should be looked into in order to reduce costs but without prejudicing quality.

This paper further analyses gender roles, gender problems and sets out fools that can be used lo overcome the constraints and difficulties of disseminating DAP widely among both male and female. Appropriateness of DAP end equipment that are gender sensitive are also addressed.

Involving women in market-driven promotion of agricultural technology

Saskia Evens

Tool Consult

The Netherlands

In the development and dissemination of improved tools for women, market forces can be a useful ally, complementary to more conventional strategies for technology development. Through market forces, some of the work of development organisations can be taken on by decentralized mechanisms that enroll the capacities of hundreds of individual entrepreneurs and customers. The ILO-TOOL programme FIT' which promotes farming and food processing technologies, is testing out such approaches.

However, the market forces approach is most probably not gender-neutral. In other words: it is certainly not obvious that women can benefit as much from this approach as men can. Therefore, we should consider from the beginning how such an approach will work out for women. The paper discusses two examples: -'User-led innovation meetings'', and making use of the resources of larger companies.

User-led innovation meetings bring together users of tools (such as farmers or food processors} and suppliers of tools (such as informal sector metal workers), in order that the users can induce the producers to address their specific needs. There are at least two important gender issues here. One is the issue of women's access to Used-led innovation meetings. The design of a User-led innovation meeting should take into account all the general provisions that are necessary to enable women to participate in any meeting, such as a choice of time, place and occasion of the meeting, etc. The second issue is women's consumer power'. It is necessary to know the extent of women's control over and access to income within the household. Thus, a basic knowledge of intra-household dynamics is indispensable when trying to promote user-led innovation in agricultural tools in a gender-sensitive way. Next to income level and control over finances, information and attitudes determine the degree of women's consumer power.

Another way of using market forces as an ally is to try to make use of the resources of larger companies. These resources can be quite large, and many companies also have an impressive infrastructure that already reaches down to many people. Larger companies have their own reasons to be interested in cooperation with development organisations, such as their corporate image, or the fact that helping customers may eventually increase their market. The challenge in "tapping the industry channel" is to find where the interests of development organisations and large companies overlap. One should, however, carefully avoid negative side effects, for example contributing to the competition that some companies pose to MSE's that one wants to support. There are many forms of cooperation that actually have the potential to strengthen the small entrepreneurs or farmers reached But it should never be taken for granted that an effective plan will be as effective for women as it is for men. A gender analysis of the target group can give an explanation of why an intervention may reach significantly fewer women. It will also give ideas on how a programme could be readjusted to increase the chances of benefiting women. Five steps are described with which one can start to 'tap the industry channel' in order to helping a specific target group, such as women food processors.

Responsive agricultural engineering

David Poston

Consultant

United Kingdom

Since subsistence farming continues to be the dominant form of agriculture in Southern and Eastern Africa, serving the needs of this sector should be a priority for agricultural engineers However, agricultural engineering is a construct of formal education which promotes northern models of expertise and acts in support of northern expectations "Engineering" is therefore principally owned by northern-oriented males who promote change according to the northern model, and excludes women and poor people who lack formal qualifications and economic power

Systems for stimulating change must recognise that under-development is not one huge problem, but the occurrence of a number of small problems millions of times. Recognition and respect of Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) are essential, and should form the basis of the dialogue between equals which is necessary for widespread development. However, the assumption of exclusive expertise by formally educated and qualified" outsiders suppresses ITK and integrates disrespect in the relationship between the engineer and the farmers, of whom the majority are women.

Traditional blacksmiths continue to be the practicing agricultural engineers in much of Africa, and incorporate the ITK of their community in their work but require information in order to improve the service they provide This existing local manufacture, repair and product development recourse has been largely overlooked by modernist agricultural engineers The role of "real'' engineers should therefore be that of a catalyst and source of information, rather than an omnipotent source of solutions, and should be carried out by working within a participative framework which maximises the control of poor farmers, women and men.

The incremental development of tools and implements within the community, with encouragement and information from external sources, will improve access of the poorest people to the means to improve their situation. Women's participation in the technological process will increase their influence over it, and therefore the benefit which they gain from it.

Gender and post-harvest technologies: the use of farming systems development and participatory approaches

Marianne Flach

FAO

Rome

Development assistance has focused much on the development of suitable technologies for small scale farmers. Many technologies are now known, have been described in scientific magasines, are being disseminated between institutions And yet, adoption rates remain low in certain areas, especially among small farmers One of the reasons for a low adoption rate is that the environment in which small farmers operate is not always conductive and efforts need to made to understand the reasons for this.

The paper gives some tools for better understanding the environment in which small farmers operate Since the farmer plays a central role in Farming Systems Development (FSD) this particular approach has focused on the farmer's environment It also provides ways of looking at the different activities and responsibilities of men and women Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodologies are implements widely used in the FSD approach and some of the methodologies that could be used by engineers are: direct observation, different ways of interviewing, transect walks, mapping and the seasonal calendar

The focus of this paper is on post-harvest technologies The reason for this is that in most African countries women are responsible for the major part of post-harvest activities This applies to drying and storage, as well as to on-farm processing The latter are usually being regarded as part of the household activities, and thus the domain of women

List of other papers prepared

The following papers have been prepared by other participants, of which some were presented during the workshop. The full papers can be found in Part 11 of the proceedings.

Activities and experiences in the field of gender and agricultural engineering in Kenya

Rodah Morogo

Ministry of Agriculture. Kenya

Women Oil pressers, cooperatives and private entrepreneurs

Zena Mpenda

ATI T-Press. Tanzania

Gender and ergonomics in agricultural engineering

Irvine Chatizwa

Agritex, Zimbabwe

Gender and Technology development, Zhombe Field Experiences

Sifiso Chikandi and Nokwazi Moyo

University of Zimbabwe

Gender in Agricultural Engineering activities of the Post-harvest programme of Uganda

Margaret Nabasirye and Sicco Kolijn

Post-harvest programme. Uganda

Making (Gender and Institutional

Responsibility: the work of the Intermediate Technology Development Group

Megan Lloyd-Laney, IT-Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe

All the papers that were prepared for the workshop are complied in Part II of the proceedings.

Chapter three - Results from working groups

A1: Contacting rural women about agricultural technologies.

This topic was chosen because in general it is difficult to reach rural women' and in particular when it concerns technical messages` The working group tried to formulate recommendations on how this could be improved

It was concluded that a need assessment has to be done prior to an intervention Possibly, problems and needs are being identified that cannot be addressed by your own project or organisation (for example, villagers ask an engineering organisation about health problems) In that case the development workers should contact other organisations that can respond to that particular problem Based on the need assessment suitable technologies have to be identified, and one has to decide on the exact location(s) and existing institutions in the area (women groups as well as NGOs, projects)

The next step is to understand cultural and religious practices that influence technology adoption. Local infrastructure (transport facilities, existing workshops, materials available locally etc.) should also be studied.

While introducing technology to rural women, as many women as possible should be informed and attend the first village meeting While it is usually quite easy to get men to attend a meeting, it is more difficult to reach and mobilise women. Ways that are presently being used are information through schools (asking the children to inform their mothers), clinics, church and other groups, district offices and extension workers (agricultural, social welfare, health etc. ) It was recognised by the working group that it will be almost impossible to reach all women in the village, but that a combination of the above ways would ensure a maximum number Information should not only go through one channel, e.g. the agricultural extension workers or only through schools, because there is a risk that a particular group of women will be missed out. The working group agreed that at a first meeting the men should be involved, in order to in form them and get their support but subsequently meetings could be organised with women only.

Presentation and discussion of possible improved technologies should be through a variety of methodologies the use of AV material, practical demonstrations (including farmer-to-farmer demonstrations), drama, newsletters or brochures in local language. It should be kept in mind that women are usually careful in trying out new technologies, they are more risk-avoiding than men For instance, when trying out HYVs, women will still grow a certain amount of traditional varieties, in order to ensure the family's food security. The advantages of improved technologies should be clear to women and those methodologies that transmit those advantages should tee clear end convincing

Feedback from the women to agricultural engineers should be an important part of the technology development process

Some of the group members felt that this way of technology introduction is still to much top-bottom (in the sense that we decide initially what is the best technology for them). In order to ensure sustainability, we need to guarantee that rural people will be able themselves to approach NGOs. (inter)national bodies for support in acquiring improved technologies. A condition for this would be that rural people are well informed about technology options as well as the institutions that could assist. Therefore communication and providing information on these aspects should constitute an important part of technology improvement

There are no recipes or clear guidelines on how to improve access to and communication to rural women, and it depends on the local situation.

Also, much of the above applies to rural men as well

A2: If the use of technology is affected by gender - what implications does this have for the transfer of a technology into a community?

First of all, it was considered that the transfer of a technology should originate from those who require it, rather than those who possess it. Since the transfer of a technology should be a response to need the process of transfer should be controlled by need, by the recipients.

The process should therefore begin with a needs assessment, with no specific technological solution in mind. The next step is that existing potential solutions can be identified and, on the decision of the future users, introduced to the community for testing. The group considered that it was important that there should always be more than one potential technology to offer, that can be compared by each other by the target group. The comparison should always include the community's present technology or practice.

One of the participants told an example of a rural community in Zambia, who hod requested for a specific agricultural technology. When the development worker arrived after the request, she was told that now the priorities had changed, and with the drough the highest priority was now food because people were hungry, and the villagers asked her: "what about. AIDS, many of our people are now dying?" The conclusion was that needs, and technology choice, are never static, but change with time and circumstances, sometimes rapidly, and that development workers should respond to requests outside their area of expertise by networking. Ideally they should be working with and through local agents who can pick up responsibility for responding to the problems which they cannot address themselves.

Once the users have made their choice and the technology has been transferred, an impact assessment should be carried out, and mitigation measures taken by the community where necessary.

The group considered that the cultural aspects of gender make technology transfer more difficult in rural areas. Since society is gender-biased so are all the systems operating within it. - Market forces ( refer to abstract of Everts)" are profit-oriented and are therefore unlikely to be gender-sensitive. If gender imbalances are to be corrected then the use of normal commercial marketing and distribution systems are inadequate ways to transfer technology, and must therefore be augmented by the use of specific gender-sensitive procedures.

The group recommenced the following approach:

The group concluded that the implications are that women and men should have equal participation and influence over choices of technology, and that choice = control.

A3: Discuss ownership and management of technology: compare group with individuals

The advantages and disadvantages of groups are:

The main advantage of a group is that it enables the member to pool resources (money, labour, material inputs).

The main disadvantage is the great problems that often arise concerning management and control, jealousy, cheating, no-one taking responsibility, etc. These problems do not always have to occur: the situation depends on other factors (mentioned below), and on the manner a group has started and is organised: did the members take the initiative themselves'? Have they invested in the enterprise? Is management training provided? Are their incentives for individuals'?

The main gender issue in this choice is that an all women's group may mean greater control of the women over the technology and its benefits. A technology which is owned by a woman individually will be considered to be family-owned at least in Zimbabwe.

In order to decide whether a new technology should be presented to a group or to individuals, the following questions should be explored:

If groups are considered, choices should also be made about the kind of group:

In a project on animal traction in Tanzania, two strategies were used. In one case, all-women groups were formed and trained in use of animal traction. These women gained confidence, but bad no support in their families /even though the husbands had consented beforehand). In the other strategy, the roofs were introduced to the families individually. Here the men were more aware of the advantages of animal traction for reducing the workloads, also the workloads of women. In an oil press project in Tanzania, men and women were in a group together However, after the group meetings, the men would meet separately and make their own decisions.

A4: When ADP is the best alternative technology how can it be best promoted for women?

What are the problems related to gender? how can they be solved? formulate recommendations for different levels, starting with those for agricultural engineers.

Problems Related to Gender

Socio-cultural

Poverty

Technical problems

Recommendations

B1: What communication methods and materials are required to assist larger numbers of engineers to integrate gender issues in their work?

There are two distinct situations:

The response in that case should be to create awareness, and provide justifications, such as

'women are in general poorer than men and therefore need additional assistance'', or ''the project will be more likely to succeed if it con eiders both sexes '. Also, the concept of gender should be clearly explained

The group felt that it is important defuse potential conflict and be non-confrontational. Talking about 'gender" rather than "women" is already less confrontational. If there is a potential for resistance, it is better to have a "poverty approach", or "food security approach" instead of a direct "gender approach or programme'. While considering poverty, the gender issue will be an integral part of it, but it is not mentioned as such and less threatening.

One engineer explained what in his eyes causes resistance with engineers:

The group considered that the use of the term "tool" in the social science sense was very confusing for engineers who use the word to refer to tangible instruments. It was therefore suggested that the term "procedures" should be used. Gender Analysis Tools should be called Gender Analysis Procedures.

Recommendations

Recommendations on the Procedures

The group suggested that the following communication methods should be employed:

B2: Using market forces as allies: identify possible ways and actors.

Through a brainstorm, the group generated a number of ways in which market forces can be used as allies in the promotion of improved technologies by women.

Blacksmiths in Zaire were suggested to press their names into each tool that they made, so that customers would he ate/e to see who made the tool. After this was decided, for several weeks no tools appeared with names an it. It turned out that the blacksmiths first wanted to improve the quality of their tools, knowing that the customers future purchases would depend on their present satisfaction.

To make full use of the potential of these forces, consumers should often be made more aware of their consumer power and how to use it.

Entrepreneurs should be made more aware of these points, before market forces can fully operate in this we`.

When the Zimbabwe Oil Press project tried to interest a producer in the press they had development, they found that the production of the press was too labour-intensive to be produced economically and needed to be redesigned This could have been avoided if the commercial tool producer was included in an earlier stage. Approtec Kenya and a tool producing company work jointly on a new handpump, and the company has placed one of its staff members temporarily with Approtech. When the design is finished, this company will produce and market it.

The Zimbabwe Oil Press Project contracted the Zimbabwe Seed company to export a complete package, including seeds, information on the cultivation and use of sunflowers, and oilpresses, to NGOs in Mozambique. In this case, the development organisation uses the infrastructure of the company to promote their oilpress, while the company also increases its sales. Another example: Approtech Kenya, which had developed a low tech and inexpensive rater pump, at one time approached Yamaha, producer of large water pumps, to do a joint survey of the needs for pumps in a certain region. Yamaha was quite interested in this cooperation.

The question was asked whether using commercial enterprises would raise the prices of tools excessively. The group concluded however that:

The group then tried to identify large Zimbabwean companies that might be interested in cooperating with development organisations on supporting women farmers. In order to identify these, the group looked at the linkages that women farmers have with large companies. The first linkage is through the products or raw materials that companies buy from women farmers, in this case mainly sunflower. Thus, companies like Lever Brothers, United Refineries. Olivine or National Foods might be interested in helping women farmers if this would result in a better product for them The second linkage is through the products that women farmers buy from large companies, mainly seeds, agrochemicals, vegetable oil, margarine, maizemeal, wheat flour, sugar, tea, milk medicines and things for children Some of those companies are possibly interested to improve women farmers' businesses, reasoning that if their business grows, their demand for our product will grow'.

B3: Adopt the activity calendar used in gender analysis to agricultural engineering.

The group started with the agricultural calendar, focusing on a farming system growing maize and beans as the most important food crops Conditions in Zimbabwe and Zambia appeared to be quite similar, in Namibia maize and beans are also important crops, but a particular condition here is that before the harvest has been completed men move with cattle to so-called came posts, which are quite far from the village Therefore women remain with children and elder people in the village, and are solely responsible for harvesting and other related activities

The group started with the agricultural calendar for maize, and discussions took already about an hour. Therefore the calendar for beans was not even made, and certainly not an activity calendar, which would include activities like taking care of animals, fishing, marketing, fetching water, cooking, child care, etc. Labour bottlenecks resulting from activities that take place in the same period were therefore not even discussed.

The engineers in the working group said that they were already using the agricultural calendar in their work but that they did not specify in the calendar who was doing what This was considered as an improvement which could focus their attention on the different activities and needs of women and men

It was possible to include tools in the calendar There was some resistance to drawing tools, group members wanted to write down which tool was being used for which activity Ideally the agricultural calendar should tee made by the villagers themselves, and thus writing should be avoided as much as possible, especially when one wants to include women in the whole process However, the working group started already with writing down months and activities, and thus there was some confusion on why suddenly tools should be drawn In adapting the calendar for engineering purposes one could start first with writing down all components of the calendar, so that at the level of engineers there will be understanding The calendar could then be used with villagers, who would use their own material for indicating all calendar components (including tools)

Initially the group wanted to include all important information into the calendar For instance, there was some discussion on how the time spent per day and number of days could be indicated into the calendar It was however agreed that this was not the purpose of the calendar, and that a different method (gender analysis procedure) could linen be used. Presence of a workshop, a blacksmith, and locally available material for making tools and equipment could also not easily be indicated into the calendar For this a map of the village would be useful Unfortunately there was no time for developing such a village map

The main conclusion was that it would be possible to adapt gender analysis methods for engineering purposes but that this would require much more lime

B4: Adopt existing gender analysis matrix to agricultural engineering.

The introduction of animal drawn cultivators (weeders) in crop production was taken as an example. The Gender Analysis Matrix (GAM) used was originally developed by Caroline Moser.

Factors affecting adoption:

The Gender Analysis Matrix should be done before, during and after technological interventions to detect the different impact on different groups (men, women, youth).

Comments

Matrix development is difficult because of non-uniformity of communities (variable subgroups). GAM was not understood even after a lengthy discussion on it by the group. GAM should be used in conjunction with other tools such as seasonal calendars, etc.

Introduction of Animal Drawn Weeder in Crop Production:

Gender Analysis Matrix

 

Labour Drudgery

Labour Skills

Time

Income

Access & Control over income

Culture & community dynamics

Women

+

+

+

+

-

 

Men

-

+

-

+

+

 

Young Women

+

+

+

     

Young men

+

+

+

     

Male HH

     

+

   

Female MH

     

+

   

Female HH

 

+

 

+

   

Community

           

traders

     

+

   

hired

     

-

   

labour

 

+

 

+

   

etc.

           

KEY

+

positive impact

-

negative impact

HH

headed household

MH

managed household

The matrix has to be filled in more extensively, this was only an example, and the group did not know all the possible effects on different groups in society.

Chapter four - Final recommendations

These recommendations were made by the participants at the workshop. They have been divided into two main sections

Approaches

Many of these recommendations are overlapping (as they came from three different working groups) which clearly illustrates the importance of them.

Gender in Practice

Chapter five - Workshop evaluation

Introduction

At the end of the workshop participants were asked to complete anonymous evaluation forms. There were 11 questions which dealt with aspects of the workshop programme and organisation Participants graded the answers on the scale A to E (very good to very poor). There then followed seven open-ended questions each with a space for participants to express their views on a range of issues. A visual picture of some key ratings is shown in the bar charts.

Evaluation of Programme and Organisation

The evaluation on specific programme elements was very positive with very few negative ratings given. About 80% of participants thought the workshop had been good or very good. The most popular elements of the programme were us follows (in order of popularity).

Most participants rated the workshop organisation and various administrative arrangements as good or very good.

Most Useful Aspects

Almost all participants indicated that the workshop had been very useful and would affect them in one way or another in their future work. Participants indicated that the workshop has brought awareness and improved their gender sensitiveness in their workplace. It also provided skills and tools required to improve communication among agricultural engineers and provided new ideas in research. [raining and planning to include gender issues

The participants felt that general networking (information exchange) case study presentations and group discussions were the most useful aspects. Keynote presentations and gender analysis matrix and tools were also cited as the useful aspects of the programme.

Least Useful Aspects

There was not general agreement as to what was the least useful aspect of the workshop. However, some participants thought the Market Place' though a good idea should have been better organised and that presentations should have been properly coordinated with better time management. Other participants indicated that videos presented were not very useful and some of the posters displayed were not related to the theme of the workshop.

Ways to improve the Workshop

The following suggestions were put forward as to how the workshop could have been improved:

Evaluation of specific components

Conclusion

The overall workshop evaluation indicates that the workshop was very popular and successful in meeting its objectives. Several participants thanked the workshop organisers for a job well done. A call for a more practical oriented work shop was made by few participants and as shown above, a few weaknesses were apparent and these will be noted by future FAO/AGROTEC workshop organisers.

Agenda

Monday, 13196

   

Morning Session

   

8:30 - 8:45

Opening

Dr. T. Simalenga

8:45 - 9:00

Workshop Methodology and Objectives

Ms. K. Jassey

9:00 - 10:00

Participant Introduction and Expectations

Facilitator: Dr. T. Simalenga

10:00 - 10:20

Tea/Coffee break

 

10:20 - 12:30

Participant Introduction and Expectations continued

 

12:30- 13:30

Lunch

 

Afternoon Session

   

Chairperson: Ms. K. Jassey

   

Rapporteur: Ms. M. Flach

   

13:30 - 14:00

Introduction to Gender Terminology and Approaches

Ms. A. Schoemaker

14:00 - 14:15

Discussions

 

14:15 - 14:35

Gender Aspects in the Post-Harvest Systems of Uganda

Ms. M. Nabasirye and Mr. S. Koljin

11:35 - 14:50

Discussions

 

14:50 - 15:10

Tea/Coffee

 

15:10 - 15:30

Gender and Technology Development.

Mr. S. Chikandi

 

Zhombe Field Experiences

Mr. N. Moyo

15:30 - 15:45

Discussions

 

15:45 - 16:10

Gender approaches in Agritex. Zimbabwe

Ms. M. Chinyemba, Ms. M. Chasi

16:10 - 16:30

Discussions

 
     

Tuesday, 5/3/96

   

Morning Session

   

Chairperson: Dr. E.N. Mwaura.

   

Rapporteur: Mr. E. Mwenya

   

8:30 - 9:15

Keynote Presentation: Gender and Agricultural Engineering: the case of blacksmiths

Mr. D. Poston

9:15 - 9:30

Discussions

 

9:30 - 9:50

Women Oil pressers - cooperatives and private entrepreneurs

Ms. Z. Mpenda

9:50 - 10:00

Discussions

 

10:00- 10:20

Tea/Coffee

 

10:70 - 10:50

Keynote Presentation: Gender and Draft Animal power

Ms. J. Rwelamira

10:50 - 11:05

Discussions

 

11:05 - 11:25

Gender and Ergonomics

Mr. I. Chatizwa

11:25 - 11:40

Discussions

 

11:40 - 12:30

Information on Working Groups

Ms. Katja Jassey

 

Ms. A. Schoemaker

 

12:30- 13:30

Lunch

 

Afternoon Session

   

Chairperson: Mr. D. Poston.

   

Rapporteur: Mr. M. Butcher

   

13:30 - 15:30

Working Groups

 

15:30 - 16:30

Feedback to planary

 
     

Wednesday, 6/3/96

   

Morning Session

   

Chairperson: J. Rwelamira.

   

Rapporteur: Ms. M. Lloyd-Laney

   

8:30 - 9:15

Keynote presentation: Gender and Technology Development

Ms. S. Everts

9:15 - 9:30

Discussions

 

9:30 - 9:50

Activities and experiences in the field of gender and agricultural engineering in Kenya

Ms. R. Morogo

9:50 - 10:00

Discussions

 

10:00 - 10:20

Tea/Coffee break

 

10:20 - 11:00

Keynote presentation: Farming Systems and a Gender Approach for Agricultural Engineering

Ms. M. Flach

11:00 - 11:15

Discussions

 

11:00 - 11:35

Gender Analysis Framework

Ms. K. Jassey

11:35 - 11:45

Discussions

 

11:15 - 12:30

Information on Working Groups

Ms. K. Jassey

   

Ms. A. Schoemaker

12:30 - 1:30

Lunch

 

Afternoon Session

   

Chairperson: Ms. S. Everts.

   

Rapporteur: Ms. F. Lubwama

   

13:30 - 15:30

Working Groups

 

15:30 - 16:30

Feedback to plenary

 

16:30 - 16:45

Explanation of Market Place

Ms. Katja Jassey

   

Ms. A. Schoemaker

19:00

Braai

 
     

Thursday, 7/3/96

   

Morning Session

   

Chairperson: Dr. T. Simalenga.

   

Rapporteur: Mr. R. Shetto

   
     

9:00 - 9:20

NGO. Gender Culture end Multiculturalism

Ms. C. Chitsike

9:20 - 9:30

Discussions

 

9:30 - 10:00

Making Gender an Institutional Responsibility: the work of ITDG

Ms. M. Lloyd-Laney

10:00- 10:20

Tea/Coffee

 

10:20

Opening of Market Place

Ms. A. Schoemaker and Ms. K. Jassey

12:00 - 13:00

Lunch

 

Afternoon Session

   

13:00 - 16:30

Market place

 
     

Friday, 8/3/96

   

Morning Session

   

Chairperson: Ms. A. Schoemaker.

   

Rapporteur Ms. K. Jassey

   

8:30 - 10:00

Discussion and formulation of priority recommendations and action plan

 

10:00 - 10:20

Tea/Coffee

 

10:20 - 11:30

Discussions continued

 

11:30 - 12:15

Workshop Evaluation

Dr. T. Simalenga

12:15 - 12:30

Closing Remarks

Ms. A. Schoemaker

List of participants

Netherlands

Ms. Saskia Everts

Tool Consult

Sarphati st. 650

1018 AV Amsterdam

Tel: 31 20 6264409

Fax: 31 20 4211202

e-mail: Saskia.Evertra@tool.nl

United Kinkdom

Mr. D. Poston

"Shenstone''

7. High Street

Bugbrooke

Northants NN7 ,QF

Tel/Fax: 44 1604 832030

South Africa

Ms. Juliana K Rwelamira

University of Stellenbosch

PO. Box 3060

7602 Coetzenburg

Tel: 27 21 918 4154

Fax: 27 21 9184146

e-mail: agrfirs@maties,sun,ac,za

Italy

Ms. Annemieke Schoemaker

AGSE/FAO

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla

Rome

Tel: 39 6 52254290

Fax 39 6 52256850

Ms. Marianne Flach

AGSI/FAO

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla

Rome

Tel: 39 6 52253521

Fax: 39 6 52256850

e-mail: Marianne. Flach@fao,org

Uganda

Mr. Sicco Kojlin

National Post Harvest Programme

Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute

P.O. Box 7065

Kampala

Tel: 256 41 567708

Fax: 256 41 567635

Ms. Margaret Nabasirye

National Post Harvest Programme

Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute

PO. Box 7065

Kampala

Tel: 256 41 567708

Fax: 256 41 567635

Tanzania

Mr. Richard Shelto

MARTI Uyole

P.O. Box 400

Mbeya

Tel: 225 65 3081/5. 4421

Fax: 256 65 4421

Ms. Zena Mpenda

T-Press P.O. Box 1409

Arusha

Tel: 255 57 6783

Fax: 255 57 8231

Telex: 42041 PANKER TZ

e-mail: TPRESS@Marie,sasa,uncp,no

Kenya

Ms. Florence Lubwama

University of Nairobi

Agric. Engineering Department

P.O. Box 30197

Tel: 254 2 593465/631793

Fax: 254 2 593465

e-mail: Kendat@healthnet,org

Swamp@healthnet,org

Dr. Elliot N. Mwaura

University olf Nairobi

Dept of Agric. Engineering

P.O. Box 30197

Nairobi

Tel: 254 2 632211,

direct line 593465

Fax: 254 2 593465

Telex: 22095 VARSITY KE

Ms. Rodah Morogo

Ministry of Agriculture

Livestock and Marketing

P.O. Box 530 Nakuru

Tel. 256 41166

Mr. Mark Butcher

ApproTECH

P.O. Box 10973 Nairobi

Tel: 254 2 787380/1

Fax: 254 2 787380/1

e-mail: MarkB@tt,sasa,unep,no

Zambia

Mr. Emmanuel Mwenya

Agric. Engineering Section

Dept, of Agriculture

P.O. Box 50291

Lusaka

Tel: 26 1 252824

Fax: 260 1 252824

Telex 43950 ZA

Mr. Martin Bwalya

Palabana Animal Draft Power Development

Programme

Private Bag 173

Woodlands. Lusaka

Tel: 260 1 264560

Fax: 260 1 264560

Telex: 43950 ZA

Ms. Monique Calon

WlD-oficer

Dutch Embassy

Lusaka

Fax: 260 1 250200

Botswana

Mr. Martin Sebonego

RIIC

Private Bag 11

Kanye

Tel: 276 340392/3

Fax: 267 340642

Namibia

Ms. Theo L. Nantaga

Ministry of Agric. Water and Rural

Development

Private Bag 13184

Windhoek

Tel: 264 61 224550

Fax: 264 61 221733/222974

Zimbabwe

Mr. Thomas Mupetesi

Agritex

P.O. Box 179

Chinoyi

Tel: 263 167 23159/23149

Mr. Paul Nekati

Agritex

P.O. Box 179

Chinoyi

Tel: 263 167 23159/23149

Ms. Christine Mutandwa

Zimbabwe Farmers Union

PO. Box 3755

Speke Avenue

Harare

Tel: 263 4 751192/737733

Fax: 263 4 750456

Mr. Irvine Chatizwa

IAE, Agritex

P.O. Box BW 330

Borrowdale

Harare

Tel: 263 4 860019/55

Fax: 263 4 730525

Ms. Martha Chinyemba

Agritex-Training Branch

PO. Box CY 639

Causeway

Harare

Tel: 263 4 794381/730821/6

Fax: 263 4 730525

Ms. Mutsa Chasi

P.O. Box CY 639

Causeway

Harare

Tel: 263 4 7946011730821/6

Fax: 263 4 730525

Mr. Sifiso Chikandi

Dept, of Agric. Economics

University of Zimbabwe

P.O. Box MP 167

Mount Pleasant

Harare

Tel: 263 4 303211, ext.1585

Mr. Nokwazi Moyo

Dept, of Agric. Engineering and Soil Science

University of Zimbabwe

PO. Box MP 167

Mount Pleasant

Harare

Tel: 263 4 303211, ext. 1518

Mr. Dumisani Magdlela

Sociology Department

University of Zimbabwe

PO. Box MP 167

Mount Pleasant

Harare

Tel: 263 4 303211

Ms. Martha Mahonde

UNIFEM

P.O. Box 4775

67. Union Avenue

Harare

Tel: 263 4 792681

Fax: 263 4 728695/704729

Telex: 24668

Mr. Munyardazi Mundava

Zimbabwe Oil Press Project

P.O. Box 1390

Harare

Tel: 263 4 735051/2

Fax: 263 4 735051/2

e -mail: Zopper@harare,iafrica,eco

Mr. Robson C. Zimuto

Heifer Project International

44A Main Street

P.O. Box 855

Gweru

Tel: 263 54 52123

Fax: 263 54 51640

Dr. Peta A. Jones

Chilangililo Cooperative Society Ltd.

Private Bag 5713

Binga

Tel: 263 115 2407

Ms. Megan Lloyd-Laney

ITDG P.O. Box 1744

Harare

Tel: 263 4 70213

Fax: 263 4 796409/723269

e-mail: itdg@imedtec,stellar,zw

Dr. Timothy Simalenga

AGROTEC/FAO

P.O. Box 3730

Harare

Tel: 263 4 758051

Fax: 263 4 758055

Telex: 26040 ZW

e-mail: fspzim@harare,iafrica,com

Ms. Katja Jassey

AGROTEC/FAO

P.O. Box 3730

Harare

Tel: 263 4 758051

Fax: 263 4 758055

Telex: 26040 ZW

e-mail: fspzim@harare,iafrica,com

Ms. Mabel Moyo

Women's Institute/J.P.V

P.O. Box 3337

Bulawayo

Tel: 263 4 76520

Top Of PageTable Of ContentsNext Page