Gender Analysis in Agriculture Punjab - Pakistan

1. Gender Analysis in AgriculturePunjab - Pakistan Field Insights – 11-13 May 2011 Linda Pennells IASC GenCap Adviser

2. Activity ‘Quick capture’ of gender good practice and field insights: • Multan orientation and tool revision. • IP and beneficiary discussions – Ali Pur • IP and beneficiary discussions – Bootaywala Objectives • Contribute field insight into 3-week Pakistan mission. • Demonstrate field-friendliness and value of practical tools. • Identify a sampling of relevant gender issues with FAO/WFP team. • Contribute to toolkit for the FAO-led AFSSWG livelihoods assessment.

3. Focus • The roles of men and women in rice and wheat production. • Gender lessons learned in farm equipment distributed in EU-funded Food Facility Project. • Gender in local irrigation. Facilitators • Jam Khalid / Abida Begum – equipment (35 min). • Jam Khalid / Abida Begum - rice (20 min). • Jamil Amir – wheat (20 min). • Irrigation – short episodes totalling 30 minutes.

4. Rice Production - Bootaywala

5. Bootaywala – community feedback • Women invest 2 or 3 hours for every hour invested by men in rice production (determinant: combine or not). • Gender gap in decision-making: not reflect M-F input. • Rice is a ‘partnership’ crop: males and females share some roles but have distinct skills/knowledge in rice production. • Conflict or disaster that causes family separation can jeopardize yield. • Vital analysis for projects focusing on local rice production: • what do male and female farmers do, what time to they invest in the crop, what are their different skills and coping methods; • how does rice work factor into men’s and women’s other productive, reproductive and community work.

6. The Bootaywala Sources

7. Equipment Distribution - Bootaywala

8. Bootaywala Equipment Feedback • The six pieces of FAO farm equipment saves women 183 hr but increases men’s work by about 4 hr per acre. • Equipment changes gender roles: power tiller/maize sheller. • Gender gap in mechanization and learning. Focus of women’s learning: separate seed and grain storages and using 1 hand tool. Men’s learning focus: operating, maintaining and minor repair of 4 pieces of mechanized equipment. • Power equipment for men – hand-operated for women. • Gender gap in decision-making: not reflect M-F partnership. • Demonstrates need to identify who will be impacted how when farm equipment selected: the positive serendipity of results in this community can not be assumed. Up-front gender analysis is needed. • This gender analysis identified ‘invisible’ project results.

9. Gender in irrigation • Water User Groups – all men – registered landowners • Irrigation water is used on crops (mainly rice and wheat) in which community members confirm that women do about 2/3 of the farm labour : a representation gap • Need for holistic approach: water for all food crops, including home gardens, fruit and nut trees etc. • Opportunities for partnership exist e.g. FAO-IOM collaboration to provide kitchen garden drip irrigation toolkits on USAID project • Creative options needed: irrigation hoses to link canal water to home gardens; drip toolkits; synergistic or linked irrigation and domestic water projects

10. Other insights: Bootaywala/Ali Pur • Women Open Schools (WOS) are Farmer Field Schools for women: merit renaming to recognize women as farmers. • Farm women express need for WOS curriculum expansion: beyond home gardening to include livestock & key cash crops. • Good WFP analysis supported synergistic livelihoods skills of men and women in smallholder and tenant farm families: • e.g. Mix of goat share-cropping (F), day labour (M-F), farming (M-F) and irrigation management (M). • Local feminization of agricultural day labour – lowest pay – men have higher-paid options, women often do not.

11. Bootaywala /Ali Pur [cont’d] • Gender analysis signals a too-high ‘opportunity cost’ if there is a push to expand cotton acreage for export earnings. • *women: 30-40 days weeding per acre in 5-month cycle. • *men: 14 hr land levelling by hand so irrigation water reaches all plants. • Toxic pesticide risk highest for male sprayers and female cotton pickers and vegetable growers (Not an FAO issue as FAO does IPM). • For every 10 hr local men invest in wheat production, women invest 8 – not exclusively a ‘men’s crop’! Men’s roles centre on mechanization and mobility. • Child labour appears higher than politically-conscious project partners admit – gender dynamics warrant exploring. • Social barriers exist for women in market access and economic migration but the ‘door is not closed’ – explore what women want to do and feel they can negotiate social sanction to do.

12. Conclusions - Identify Practical gender analysis can help identify the important realities of women compared to men: • who should be consulted/involved and why. • who has skills, knowledge and potentially solutions to offer. • who needs extension service, training, farm inputs and resources. • the impact of distribution (equipment, livestock & crop inputs). • the comparative opportunity cost of males & females.

13. Conclusions - Benefits Benefits: • FAO team inspired to create 8 more practical tools for field use and use by IPs. • FAO Pakistan rethinks implement distribution to women farmers. • Field analysis triggers active discussion on the Gender Marker – relevance is seen as are practical ways of building gender into projects. • Contributed to incorporating gender into Pakistan’s Detailed Livelihoods Assessment.