Chapter two - Overview papers presented at the workshop
Involving women in market-driven promotion of agricultural technology
Chapter three - Results from working groups
A1: Contacting rural women about agricultural technologies.
A3: Discuss ownership and management of technology: compare group with individuals
A4: When ADP is the best alternative technology how can it be best promoted for women?
B2: Using market forces as allies: identify possible ways and actors.
B3: Adopt the activity calendar used in gender analysis to agricultural engineering.
B4: Adopt existing gender analysis matrix to agricultural engineering.
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
1, increased awareness by a selected group of agricultural engineers about gender and agricultural engineering, and in particular the recognition that it can be translated into practical work. Agricultural engineers should be provided with practical examples of how women can be involved and affected by agricultural engineering.
2 Proceedings consisting of practical examples and some guidelines, which highlight gender issues for agricultural engineering in these counties.
3. Ideas for a presentation package to be made by FAO and AGROTEC on gender and agricultural engineering, to be used et (international) agricultural engineering events, for the purpose of increasing awareness amongst agricultural engineers on the interaction of gender and engineering.
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 |
1.1 To understand Gender Tools and Concepts.
1.2 To understand Gender Concepts in Agricultural Engineering.
1.3 To gain knowledge on Agricultural Engineering.
1.4 To understand cultural issues and strategies affecting technology development.
1.5 To gain knowledge on how to mechanise women tasks.
GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT |
2.1 How to incorporate gender in Technology development.
2.2 How to incorporate gender in research.
2.3 To gain knowledge on how to mechanise women tasks.
TO GAIN SKILLS |
3.1 To gain skills for incorporating gender in research, planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes.
3.2 How to integrate gender in training.
NETWORKING |
4.1 Sharing of experiences.
GOOD WORKSHOP |
5.1 Good quality of workshop output.
SOCIALISATION |
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:
- Realisation that women were interested in using animal traction but that only men own oxen and exercise complete control over them, thus giving women no access to their use or benefit.
- Awareness campaigns and training seminars among men and women about benefits for all from use of DAP and possibility of sharing DAP facilities.
- Helping women to actually get access and control over DAP technology by organising women into groups, providing them with loans to purchase oxen and equipment and to manage income- generating projects using DAP.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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:
- Identify traditional roles around the particular activity.
- Interview women and men first as one group and then as two separate groups.
- There should be informal, as well as formal, interviews.
- Explore the probable down-stream effects of meeting the need, and check who will be affected and how.
- Working separately, women and men should priorities their problems and propose solutions.
- Examine the technological status quo, since this is the departure point.
- Identify strategic gender constraints, for example land-ownership and access to credit
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.
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:
1. What are the costs of acquiring the technology: If low enough individual ownership will often be preferable, because it avoids problems mentioned above. If costs are too high for individual ownership, options are:
a) Giving the technology as a grant to individuals. This is not sustainable and should usually be avoided
b) Providing large credits to individuals. This is only advisable if the market and profit situation is such that the high costs can be recovered by the individual so that the credit can be repaid
c) Pooling the resources of individuals by forming a group.
2. Do other costs (operational costs, cash flow) make pooling of resources necessary?
3. Production capacity of the technology: does economic operation require that it operates more hours than one person can make? In that case: either group ownership or hiring out by individual.
4. Operational requirements: how mans people should work together on it? If more than one, these could either be group members, assisting family members, or hired personnel.
5. How does the choice influence the costs of the development intervention'? Even when you work with individual owners, they can be trained in groups to save intervention costs for the development organisation.
6. Is the technological process such that the individual contributions of group members can be kept separately? For example sharing a silo may give rise to confusion about who owns what part of the content.
7. The gender relations in the community: forming an all-women group enables women to be together and apart from the men; this may increase their confidence and the control they have over the benefits of the new technology. However, it may also lead to non-commitment and even obstruction by the men, leading to negative effects for women. Which of these is likely to be the case depends on the gender relations in the community.
8. Other cultural factors in the community: e.g. can men and women, daughters-in-law and their mother-in-law, perform well together in one group? Is the technical know-how and technology too private or secret to do collectively'?
9. Past experience with group formation, already existing groups, village structure. If groups already exist, are their forms and functions comparable to those of a productive group? Is the culture in general group-oriented? The success of groups depends on the kind of groups and how they were introduced or established.
If groups are considered, choices should also be made about the kind of group:
- Collective production or 'service model' (which means collective ownership of the machine but individual production, sometimes against a fee). Experience shows that the service model is less prone to organisational failure.
- Another model is individual ownership with group-use: one person owns the technology but members of a group also use it (for a bee).
- Small groups versus large groups. This will depend much on the answers to questions I to 3. Social control and good organisation is easier in small groups.
- Family-based groups? These may be more likely to stick together, although in some contexts the jealousy may actually be fiercer.
- Religion-based groups? It may be easier to get permission for women to join such groups. However, the groups have no tradition of economic cooperation, and they are sometimes too large.
- All-women groups or mixed men-women groups. Often in mixed groups, men take over the decision making and get uneven share of the benefits. In other cases their contribution is essential to success. Women's groups may cause resistance. Analyse gender relations to decide on this.
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.
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
- Gender roles related to DAP are specialised without taking info consideration other household gender roles that take up time and overburden women.
- Gender specialised roles regardless of workload and time requirement.
- Beliefs and taboos, e.g. that food should not be transported by donkeys,
- Husbands do not allow their wives to meet/work with male extension agents.
- Literacy level of women is lower than that of men.
Poverty
- Availability and financial affordability of DAP technology to some people and not others.
Technical problems
- Inappropriate extension approaches which do not consider women's specific needs and constraints are used.
- Lack of quality training of draught animals and inadequate training of people to use animals properly. Sometimes men are trained while women are the ones who use draught animal power (e.g. for weeding).
- Lack of adequate information about DAP.
Recommendations
- Information should be made available at all levels. FAO/AGROTEC also has to disseminate information (technical and gender related), e.g. in form of leaflets, training aids. Literacy campaigns should be integrated into agricultural information.
- To agricultural engineers: consultation with other specialisation(s) is necessary.
- Recommend DAP in systems able to adopt/sustain such a technology, e.g. to those with improved cultural practices/ commercial outlook.
- Restructuring of credit systems necessary.
- Organise and conduct training programmes in a manner that women are encouraged to attend: taking into consideration venue, timing, duration and language.
- Involve both men and women in the introduction/promotion of technologies, even those targeting women. Open group discussions involving men and women should be encouraged.
- In the long run, more women extension agents should be trained.
There are two distinct situations:
1. The agricultural engineer is not convinced or aware that gender issues are important to consider.
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:
- Focus too much on conflicts in the household or family.
- Feminist or Women's liberation's approach.
- Describe society in two groups, women and men, and say that women are disadvantaged because of men.
2. The agricultural engineer is aware and willing to address the issue, but does not know how. In that case, adequate means, such as gender analysis tools , and examples how other people did it should be provided
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
- Engineers must go into the field, not stay in the office or workshop.
- Engineers must participate in the identification and analysis of problems.
- Engineers must be present throughout testing in the field
- Engineers must be helped to recognise the "profit" which gender awareness brings, for example in terms of health and income.
- Engineers need to learn basic social science communication skills.
- Social scientists need to learn to communicate with engineers and to understand the parameters of engineering
Recommendations on the Procedures
- Do not do it in a hurry.
- Do not use (directive) questionnaires.
- Interviews should include separate ones for men and women. These should respect and follow local protocols and be culturally sensitive.
- Identify the division of labour and benefits, for example by using a crop calendar.
- Check on who is using a tool, how often, and where? How can a woman transport a tool to the workplace? This will all have implications for the design.
- Identify who has control over resources.
- Women and men should prioritise their problems and propose solutions separately. Although not all problems can be addressed by the engineer, a knowledge of other, particularly higher, priorities is necessary in order to define the context in which the agricultural engineering- related problem exists.
- The engineer should network with other specialist organisations
The group suggested that the following communication methods should be employed:
- Influence secondary and tertiary engineering education.
- In-service training, through case-histories and role-play.
- Integrate gender issues with professional training.
- Use "pairing" (the sharing of knowledge between two individuals with different skills, through working together) to develop both engineers and social scientists skills and perceptions.
- Write articles on gender issues in relation to agricultural engineering for professional engineering journals.
- Produce and distribute targeted leaflets and video tapes.
- Use the mass media to extend discussion of the issues.
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.
1. Ideas that use market forces originating from consumers:
a) Consumers can, through their demand stimulate production of tools
b) Consumers can redirect the course of larger industries, for example by boycotting certain products.
c) Consumers can have a role in quality control.
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.
2. Ideas to use market forces originating from the small producers of tools:
a) In she long run, it is profitable for the toolmaker to develop new tools that the customer wants.
Small innovations with low investment costs or low risks, can be initiated by the toolmakers themselves.
b) It is also profitable for a toolmaker to supply the users with 'after sales services' such as training, users guidelines and repair services.
Entrepreneurs should be made more aware of these points, before market forces can fully operate in this we`.
c) Tools developed by a development organisation can later on be produced by manufacturing enterprises. This requires cooperation the two parties in an early stage.
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.
3. Ideas that use market forces involving large companies:
a) Joint marketing when the markets are complementary.
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.
b) Use the expertise of commercial enterprises: learn from them about marketing, advertising. Market surveys, etc.
c) Use a commercial product to carry a message e.g. on the package, that you want to convey to large numbers of people.
d) Ask the companies to show the technologies that you want to promote somewhere in their advertisement spots.
The question was asked whether using commercial enterprises would raise the prices of tools excessively. The group concluded however that:
- If there is some competition among producers, market forces also have a downward push on price. For a new technology to be sustainable, it has to be realistically priced: you cannot subsidise it forever.
- Sometimes the tool is first bought by richer people, but when production increases the price decreases and the product becomes affordable to poorer people.
- If a tool 'pays itself back', it doesn't matter if it is expensive (as long as credit is available). When designed for commercial purposes, a tool should always be able to pay itself back
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'.
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
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:
- income and household resource
- previous skills
- previous ownership and DAP
- extension approach
- culture
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.
These recommendations were made by the participants at the workshop. They have been divided into two main sections
a) what approach should the gender specialists use when discussing these issues with engineers:
b) practical examples that can be implemented by either individuals or organisations (or in some cases both).
Approaches
1. Whisper, don't shout.
2. Don't patronise.
3. Do not use confrontational strategies: do not begin with "gender workshops" or statistics which put men on the defensive.
4. Do not assume that traditional cultures are automatically negative. Gender sensitisation should be approached through participatory methods.
6. Do not feminise the process: use women and men.
7. Focus on the family and not just on women: illustrate that the gender approach and gender equality have economic and social benefits for the family as a whole.
8. Recognise and respect cultural norms and existing bonds within the community.
9. Gender policies should be developed within the organisation rather than imposed from above.
10. Persuade through personal experiences.
11 . Acknowledge people who are already making an effort to include gender in their work (give credit where credit is due).
Many of these recommendations are overlapping (as they came from three different working groups) which clearly illustrates the importance of them.
Gender in Practice
1. Put up conscientising posters. Calendars and other media within your workplace.
2. Write articles for newspapers and publications.
3. Make use of professional engineering associations.
4. Incorporate gender issues into curriculae of universities colleges and schools.
5. Universities should encourage research projects on family and gender issues.
6. Provide practical examples and use case studies of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Gender Analysis (GA).
7. Use workshops or similar methods to decide how to integrate gender issues and PRA techniques into the organisation's activities.
8. Learn from others who are already including gender issues:
Exchange visits to project of other organisations to look at key issues' such as gender.
Lectures from outside organisation
9. Gender training for development staff:
Introduce gender analysis tools to all field workers.
Use existing training materials and adapt them.
Produce new ones where necessary.
10. Gender specialists do not need to be women: men can also be gender specialists.
11. Cooperation between social scientists and engineers:
Research implementation and evaluation should be interdisciplinary.
Social scientists should understand more about engineering and engineers should learn more about social issues and include it in their work.
When dealing with gender, integrate it into specific issues such as -gender and draft animal power , gender and storage'.
Don't isolate the gender issues from the other components of technology projects. This is also a strategy for addressing gender in a non-threatening way. E.g. make gender an aspect of 'poverty' or 'food security'.
12. Management should promote gender issues:
Include gender in staff job descriptions. Organisations should have clear gender policy and objectives.
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).
- Group discussions and presentations
- Case study presentations
- Key note presentations
- Introduction to the workshop and expectations
- Gender terminologies and analysis tools
- Market place
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:
- Proper co-ordination of "market place" and possibly to have a feedback of each group to plenary session.
- More time allocated to case study presentations.
- Getting project beneficiaries (farmers! to the workshop.
- More in-depth explanation of terminologies with specific examples on successes and failures.
- More time for discussions after paper presentations.
- Allocate time for field visit.
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.
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 |
Netherlands
Ms. Saskia Everts
Tool Consult
Sarphati st. 650
1018 AV Amsterdam
Tel: 31 20 6264409
Fax: 31 20 4211202
e-mail: [email protected]
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
