Applying Communication for Development with a Gender Perspective to Family Farming.

LIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES | LIMITLESS IMPACT

1

LIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES | LIMITLESS IMPACTLIMITLESS POTENTIAL | LIMITLESS OPPORTUNITIES | LIMITLESS IMPACTCopyright University of Reading

COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT

with a Gender Perspective on Family Farming

School of Agriculture, Policy & DevelopmentInternational Development Research Group


OUTLINE• What is communication for development?• What role can communication play?

•Communication in innovation•Communication in family farming•Communication in resilience and livelihoods

• Gender, innovation systems and communication•Project findings: Innovation systems, agricultural growth and rural

livelihoods in East Africa• Conclusions


DEFINING COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENTComDev is a social process based on dialogue using a broad range of tools and methods. ComDev is about seeking change at different levels including listening, building trust, sharing knowledge and skills, building policies, debating, and learning for sustained and meaningful change. It is not public relations or corporate communications.

World Congress on Communication for Development, Rome, 2006


4

DEFINING COMMUNICATION FOR DEVELOPMENTThe use of communication processes, techniques and media to

help people:•Create awareness of their situation •Create options for change•Resolve conflicts •Work towards consensus•Plan actions for change•Acquire knowledge and skills•Improve the effectiveness of institutions.

(Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 1999)


5

FAMILY FARMING• “Family farming includes all family-based agricultural activities,

and it is linked to several areas of rural development. Family farming is a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production which is managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labour, including both women’s and men’s”.

» http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/home/what-is-family-farming/en/

• Ownership and/or management of a farm by a family• Family supplies most of the labour on the farm


6

FAMILY FARMING AND COMMUNICATIONDomain Examples of communication rolesEnabling policy environment: Recognition of family farmers’ multiple contributions in national policies and dialogues; articulation of national definitions of family farming

Creating awareness and promoting advocacyStrengthening local institutionsCapacity buildingProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCommunication and dialogue

Research and data: collect national data on the agricultural sector that systematically includes family farmers

Providing access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesAdvocacy with institutional partnersBuilding networks and local capacity

Agricultural environment: targeted agricultural, environmental and social policy interventions;

Providing access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCreating awareness and promoting advocacyAdvocacy with farmer networksCommunication and dialogue

Enabling socio-economic environment: demographic, economic and sociocultural conditions; access to markets; access to finance; Access to land and natural resources

Adjusting socio-economic activitiesProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCreating awareness and promoting advocacyStrengthening local institutionsCapacity buildingWorking with farmers to test technologies, livelihood options and coping strategiesIdentifying sound economic and marketing practicesDisseminate knowledge through a range of communication and extension strategies

Access to enabling information environment: access to technology and extension services; specialized education

Adjusting socio-economic activitiesProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesStrengthening local institutionsCapacity buildingAdvocacy with farmer networksBuilding networks and local capacityCommunication and dialogue


WHAT IS RESILIENCE?• Resilience is the ability to withstand threats or shocks, or the

ability to adapt to new livelihood options, in ways that preserve integrity and do not deepen vulnerability. This includes the ability to withstand threats and the ability to adapt to new options.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs_high_level_forum/documents/Resilience_HLEF_sideevent__13Sept12_.pdf








FAO RESILIENCE STRATEGY• Enable the environment - Institutional strengthening and

governance of risk and crisis in agricultural sectors.• Watch to safeguard - Information and early warning systems

on food and nutrition security and transboundary threats.• Apply risk and vulnerability reduction measures -

Protection, prevention, mitigation and building livelihoods with technologies, approaches and practices across all agricultural sectors.

• Prepare and respond - Preparedness for and response to crises in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry.

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/how-we-work/enable-the-environment/en/

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/how-we-work/watch-to-safeguard/en/

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/how-we-work/protect-and-build/en/

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/how-we-work/prepare-and-respond/en/


9

RESILIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONDomain Examples of role of communication

Enable the environment

Creating awareness and promoting advocacyProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesWorking with farmers to test technologies, livelihood options and coping strategiesDisseminate knowledge through a range of communication and extension strategiesBuilding networks and local capacity

Watch to safeguard

Strengthening local institutionsCreating awareness and promoting advocacyProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCommunication and dialogueBuilding networks and local capacityAdvocacy with farmer networks

Apply risk and vulnerability reduction measures

Improving agricultural practicesStrengthening local institutionsCreating awareness and promoting advocacyProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCommunication and dialogueWorking with farmers to test technologies, livelihood options and coping strategiesIdentifying sound economic and marketing practicesDisseminate knowledge through a range of communication and extension strategiesBuilding networks and local capacityAdvocacy with farmer networks

Prepare and respond

Creating awareness and promoting advocacyProviding access to adequate knowledge and communication servicesCommunication and dialogueWorking with farmers to test technologies, livelihood options and coping strategiesDisseminate knowledge through a range of communication and extension strategiesBuilding networks and local capacityAdvocacy with farmer networks


INNOVATION SYSTEM• The institutions, organisations, individuals that influence (support or

constrain) innovation in smallholder agriculture• Some elements may be planned (government policy, public sector

research, extension, NGO project, outreach by agribusiness, ….)• But much of it is unplanned – and can only be identified and explained

by farmers

10


COMMUNICATION AND INNOVATION• Change needs new institutional arrangements and processes

to support the changing context of farmer needs•It needs communication intermediaries•It should extend beyond the sphere of activity of farmers

and technology suppliers•Networks need to be embedded or accompanied by

communication services and strategies


INNOVATION SUPPORT SYSTEMSInnovation support systems should be able to support:1. Network building2. Social learning3. Conflict management

Likely to be a mix of communication services


13

INNOVATION AND COMMUNICATIONDomain Examples of communication Network building Network brokering

Process facilitationExploration of opportunities and constraintsOrganizing interaction and participationSupport to institutional learning for technical change experimentsBuilding networks and local capacityDiagnosis and visioning support

Social learning Demand articulation and knowledge brokerageProcess facilitationInteractive design and experimentationLearning-oriented monitoringExploration of opportunities and constraintsOrganizing interaction and participationProfessional development supportBuilding networks and local capacityChange management supportReflective learning supportAdvocacy with farmer networksEstablish and support national agricultural innovation capacity support units

Conflict management

Process facilitationExploration of opportunities and constraintsConflict managementAdvocacy with farmer networksChange management support


INNOVATION SYSTEMS, AGRICULTURAL GROWTH AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS IN EAST AFRICA

• Funded by: DFID-ESRC Growth Programme• University of Reading researchers: Chris Garforth, Peter Dorward,

Sarah Cardey, Graham Clarkson• Overseas partners:

•University of Nairobi, Kenya•Makerere University, Uganda•Ahfad University for Women, Sudan•University of Kiel, Germany•George Mose Consultants, Kenya

• Start and end date: 16 June 2012 – 30 October 2014

14


15

AIM OF RESEARCH IS TO FIND OUT:• How different institutional arrangements for supporting

smallholder farming affect the innovation behaviour of men and women members of farming households

• In what ways, and to what extent, innovation by smallholders affects their incomes and livelihoods, and the local agricultural economy.

• Innovation: •product (a new [to the farmer] practice, technology or

input)•process (the steps, influences, interactions that lead to a

change taking place on the farm)


OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH• Document existing landscape and trends in provision

(financing and delivery) of innovation support • Develop a detailed description and analysis of agricultural

innovation systems and processes for men and women in smallholder farming households, leading to hypotheses linking innovation support to innovation outcomes

• Test hypotheses through economic and gender analysis of the impact of innovation on productivity, incomes and livelihoods in the three countries, at household level and in the local rural economy

• Develop evidence-based conclusions on the potential and limitations for enhancing support for SHFs’ innovation

16


METHODOLOGY• Methodology is based on innovation system framework:

•The institutions, organisations, individuals that influence (support or constrain) innovation in smallholder agriculture

•Some elements may be planned (government policy, public sector research, extension, NGO project, outreach by agribusiness, ….)

•But much of it is unplanned, moulded by farmers in search of solution, and can only be identified and explained by farmers.

1. Literature review and key informant interviews2. Timelines, innovation histories, communication maps3. Survey and participatory farm management methods

Innovation systems, agricultural growth and rural livelihoods


18

WHY GENDER AND INNOVATION?• Men and women face different opportunities and constraints

within the agricultural sector • Gender is not just about women; it is about how ‘female’ and

‘male’ are defined, how those definitions are sustained and change over time, and how they affect men’s and women’s opportunities

• Gender inequalities mean constraints for men & women:•gender dynamics within the household may make it difficult

for men to take up a new agricultural enterprise or technology that increases the requirement for household labour unless gender roles can be renegotiated to give women a share in the benefit from the innovation.

• However, gender relations within households are complex and heterogeneous.


19

WHY GENDER AND INNOVATION?• Women and men do not receive similar levels of benefits from

agriculture • Arises from:

•way in which institutions deal with gender, •from attitudes towards the respective roles of women and

men •government policies which do not do enough to create an

institutional environment in which women and men have equal access to opportunities to improve their farming.


20

WHY GENDER AND INNOVATION?• New technologies and innovation processes tend to benefit

men more than women because:•They lessen the workload of men and increase the activities

linked to women’s roles •They are not gender neutral•They are not available to both women and men in equal

measure. •Practices often don’t make it into women’s hands

• Gender inequalities run the risk of being reinforced


INTERESTING FINDINGS - ACTORS• Dynamic farming systems; external and endogenous innovation• Farmer – farmer learning (including migrants) is a major influence

•Observation•Discussion•Trial and error to optimise on-farm management•Sharing planting material

• Role of private sector in some enterprises (vanilla, cotton, …)• Markets (access; price changes) influence innovation behaviour• One change may preclude others (e.g. oxen [men] v. dairy cows

[women])


INTERESTING FINDINGS (2) - ACTORS• Problems with some external innovations

•Resource constraints (e.g. fodder, water)•Lack of information•Inappropriate / unsuccessful innovations

• External actors important sources of new varieties• Markets stimulate innovation• Women and men act to overcome constraints


INTERESTING FINDINGS (3) -CONSTRAINTS TO INNOVATION• Absent or inadequate support institutions• Gender based constraints

•Men forcibly take benefits from women’s innovations•Men shift burden of household expenses to women when

they know women have some income•Women’s inadequate access and control over resources

• Communication and information constraints• Institutions based on culture remain constraints, but can

change in response to pressure from within communities


24

KEY THEMES (1)• Understanding the notion of ‘uptake’ is important to design

effective policies and interventions to support family farmers• ‘Uptake’ of technology and innovation from an institutional

(‘top-down’) perspective is very different from farmer’s experience

• Key informants and literature continually refer to ‘uptake’ as a linear transferal of technology; the experience of farmers is very different and more nuanced

• Farmers are actively looking to improve their livelihoods and their individual farm enterprises; they seek, adapt and improve technologies to fit their own individual context


25

KEY THEMES(2)• Men and women family farmers innovate through different

processes, using different technologies >some by choice and some due to the influence of

policies / intervention• Innovation is influenced by factors of social differentiation • Main constraints to innovation are input and output markets• Family farmers’ propensity to innovate leads to measurable

differences in income and expenditure at household level• Smallholder farmer innovations drive important improvements

in individual and household welfare and quality of life


26

KEY THEMES - GENDER• Gender differences in communication networks

•Formal versus informal linkages•Linkages with rural communication services versus

interpersonal or informal support• Gender differences in access and processes of engagement

with rural communication sources•Gendered support for crops (cash vs food)•Assumptions about what will be done with income, therefore

innovation at different points in value chain


27

KEY THEMES – GENDER (2)• Exacerbating gender inequalities by not understanding gender

dynamics•Project focussing on women increasing women’s work•Undermining gender relations/adding conflict

• Women vs men coming out ahead rather than focussing on gender relations and inequalities

• Still differential/unequal engagement with communication and innovation processes and opportunities


28

KEY THEMES - GENDER (3)• Political will and policy context

•“gender” streaming policies and embedded assumptions about men and women’s role in agriculture

• Highly heterogeneous contexts•Institutions regionalised•Households differentiated


29

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION• Dynamic communication needed to cover farmer-led change• Interpersonal farmer-farmer learning is key• Role of range of actors – not just extension• Relationships between changes needs to be understood & mediated• Different stakeholders have different – sometimes conflicting –

understandings of innovation•Multiple stakeholder engagement is key to best serve farmers

• Institutional capacity building is important•Linkages and networks between institutions•Ability for institutions to act collaboratively

• Internal/external information important to stimulate information• Information constraints continue to exist


30

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION• “Uptake” must be understood from multiple perspectives

•It is not neutral• It means different things to different actors•It is not about persuasion but adaptation

• Farmers are active in communication processes, and fundamentally innovative – must be engaged with communication design and delivery

• Different farmers have different assets and constraints, often conflicting

• Communication has a role in bringing together farmers and network actors


31

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATION - GENDER• Unpack assumptions about gender roles to avoid reinforcing

inequalities• Unpack communication dynamics based on social

differentiation• Communication needs to understand gendered

•Technologies•Communication processes

• Make gender distinct in policy to avoid assumptions• Understand regional dynamics of gendered differentiation


32

CONCLUSIONS1. We need to mainstream communication in policy and programs

vs. only looking at extension services -- more dynamic understanding of communication processes

1. Demand-driven2. Actively engaging with voices of rural communities3. Recognize the role for rural institutions in communication

(i.e. banking, civil society, private sector, rural organizations)2. Need to operationalize rural communication services to link the

different experiences of different institutions and farmers 3. Need to support capacities in rural communication services

1. Farmer capacity2. Policy maker capacity


33

Thank you

[email protected]

Date post:	28-Jul-2015
Category:	Presentations & Public Speaking
Upload:	cccomdev
View:	379 times
Download:	0 times

Applying Communication for Development with a Gender Perspective to Family Farming.

Presentations & Public Speaking