Posted February 1998

Gender and Participation in Agricultural Development Planning

2. Comparative analysis of the case studies

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

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

Project goals, approaches, methods, and tools

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

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

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

We turn now to the analysis of the case studies:

• the policy environment
• the "entry point" or where the project entered the agricultural planning process
• the tools and methods used
• capacity building, especially training in gender and difference-sensitive participatory methods
• the gender information produced
• linkages with planning processes and related organisations, and
• institutionalisation