Gender | Global Farmer Field School Platform

Gender and Social inclusion and Farmer Field Schools

Why link FFS with gender equality and social inclusion?

FFS are designed to empower producers to observe, analyse, experiment and make informed decisions. But women, men, youth and marginalized groups do not all face the same conditions. Their access to land, inputs, services, information, markets, leadership spaces and control over benefits is shaped by social norms, roles, responsibilities and power relations.

In this context, gender integration is not an add-on to FFS. It is intrinsic to the quality of the FFS process itself. The non-negotiable principles of FFS already recognize that diversity in age, gender and experience enriches learning. Trust, participation, farmer-led decision-making, local adaptation and group-based learning are all stronger when different voices can contribute meaningfully.

This work responds directly to FAO’s renewed ambition for FFS, in which equal opportunities for women, men and youth are identified as one of the three interlinked impact domains. Gender equality and social inclusion are therefore not secondary outcomes. They are central to whether FFS can deliver lasting impact.

How are FFS integrating gender-responsive and gender-transformative approaches?

Gender integration in FFS should be understood as a continuum of progressive change. Programmes start from different points, depending on the local context, existing gender norms, institutional capacities, risks and opportunities. In some contexts, the immediate priority may be to remove practical barriers to participation. In others, there may be space to address deeper questions of voice, agency, leadership, decision-making and control over resources and benefits.

At a minimum, FFS need to be gender-responsive. Gender responsiveness is part of the pedagogy itself. FFS are based on farmers’ needs and interests, and their content must be adapted to the local context. This means recognizing that women, men, youth and marginalized groups may have different roles, knowledge, priorities, constraints and opportunities. If these differences are not understood and addressed, the FFS process cannot be fully farmer-led, inclusive or context-specific.

From there, programmes can move towards more gender-transformative practice. This means going beyond participation and practical access to address the deeper causes of inequality, including restrictive norms, unequal power relations, limited agency, and discriminatory structures. Such change takes time and is built through repeated learning cycles, trust, dialogue, facilitation and collective reflection.

There is no single model that works everywhere. The aim is not to apply the same gender package in every FFS, but to start from the local reality, ensure that all FFS are gender-responsive, and support gradual movement towards more transformative change.

From stocktaking to practical guidance

FAO’s work on gender integration in FFS builds on a stocktaking exercise carried out with partners and field practitioners to better understand how gender has been addressed in FFS practice, what results have been achieved, and where gaps remain. The stocktaking highlighted the potential of FFS to support women’s empowerment and more inclusive rural development, while also showing the need for more intentional and systematic gender integration across the full FFS cycle.

Building on this work, FAO and CARE developed the Guidelines for gender integration in Farmer Field Schools: Towards gender-transformative programmes. The guidelines provide practical, step-by-step support for integrating gender from programme formulation and design through implementation, monitoring, evaluation and learning.
They are intended primarily for FFS programme formulators and managers, but are also relevant for field officers, technical officers, extension agents, agricultural advisors, master trainers, facilitators, gender focal points, implementing partners, government institutions, civil society organizations and farmer organizations.

The guidelines distinguish between “must-have” gender-responsive actions and “love-to-have” gender-transformative actions. This helps users identify a realistic starting point, meet minimum standards, and progressively move towards deeper change depending on mandate, resources, capacities and local opportunities.

As a next step, FAO is developing a modular training package to support the operationalization of the guidelines. The package builds on existing in-country materials, needs assessments and consultations with field experts, helping ensure that the training materials are relevant, practical and adaptable to different contexts.