|
at the- iiversy--bf: r --
Conference on
GENDER ISSUES IN FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
USING MALE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PERSONNEL
TO TARGET WOMEN FARMERS
Anita Spring
University of Florida
A group of people en route to the FSR Conference met a
child with a wagon load of puppies. One of them asked
where the child was taking the puppies and the child
answered that the puppies were going to be given to the
commodity researchers (this was a sophisticated child).
The next day, after the conference had started, the
participants were en route to lunch and they came across
the same child again. One of the participants introduced
the child to some people who hadn't been there the day
before and asked the same question about the fate of the
puppies. This time the child said the puppies were
being taken to the farming systems researchers. The
participants pointed out that only yesterday the child
said the puppies were going to commodity researchers.
"But," the child replied, "yesterday, the puppies didn't
have their eyes open."
INTRODUCTION
To many FSR proponents, commodity-oriented scientists do not focus on the
Page 2
whole farming system and therefore do not have their eyes open. They cannot
appreciate the complexities of small farm management and smallholder needs and
problems. This is analagous to the way those involved in farming systems
research and extension (FSR&E) feel about the lack of appreciation and
consideration of gender issues and intrahousehold dynamics amongst FSR&E
practitioners. Those who ignore these issues do not have their eyes open.
Farming systems researchers did not invent the fact that farmers have to deal
with a multitude of environmental, familial, infrastructural and other
factors, so that a focus on a single commodity might not remedy the problems
of the farming system. So too, researchers who consider women's role in
agriculture did not invent the sexual division of labor, the semi-autonomous
nature of different family members, the differential access to land, labor and
capital, or the fact that women are becoming more involved in the smallholder
sector in some developing countries because of extensive male migration
(Chaney and'Lewis 1980; Gladwin et al., Dixon 1982).
Evidence is accumulating that technology transfer is frequently hindered when
intrahousehold dynamics are not taken into account (see for example Rogers
1979, McKee 1984). Often, technologies are ill-suited or only partially
adopted because the resource base in terms of personnel, capital, land and
equipment is inappropriate or inadequately understood. A consideration of
intrahousehold labor allocations and decision-making shows that in many places
female family members will have to provide the labor and will either make or
be involved in the decision as to whether or not to adopt the technology. In
addition, labor, access to resources, and remuneration are not consolidated in
one neat family unit everywhere in the world, but often are dispersed among
individuals who are in diverse age and sex categories. A failure to look at
who does what farm operations, who makes which decisions, and who receives the
Page 3
remuneration and makes further investments, will affect the practice of FSR&E.
For example, a higher yielding cereal variety might require more labor in
managing, harvesting, processing and storing, especially in synchronously
maturing varieties (Ferguson and Horn 1985, McKee 1984) or a livestock
intervention might target one group of producers at the expense of another.
For example, in a case from Senegal, men made decisions about the planting of
cereal crops, but women contributed much of the labor for the crop's weeding,
harvesting and processing. Women made decisions about legume, vegetable, and
condiment crops. If women did the extra work for the new variety of cereal
crop, they had less time for the crops that they managed. In livestock
production male farmers favored livestock interventions that "would increase
live-weight and quality of stock" because size and number were determinants of
wealth. But, women controlled the milk allocation and sale of milk products
and "would gain most from interventions which increased calf survival or
...permitted an increase in the number of animals under current land or labor
constraints" (McKee 1984:598-599).
There are specific methodologies needed to understand intrahousehold variables
within the FSR&E process (McKee 1984). In the pre-diagnostic stage, the
ethnographic literature that provides information on the household's division
of labor, decision-making, and allocation of resources must be reviewed for
specific recommendation domains. In the diagnostic stage, the types of
household and the types of representative farmers need to be considered. For
example in areas where there are many households headed by women, as in the
case of much of Africa and the Caribbean, it is necessary to include such
households in the sample and to ask if their resources and needs are the same
as or different from the households headed by men. Socioeconomic and
agronomic variables have to be assessed in terms of various household members
Page 4
in the difEerent types of households. The interventions have to be geared to
the needs of the types of households and the constituent members. In the
technology design stage, it is necessary to make sure that the researchers do
not use incorrect assumptions about gender; McKee suggests the input of female
scientists and field workers, but this is not always possible or even a
guarantee that gender issues will be considered. There is no reason why both
male and female scientists--"who have their eyes open"--cannot work on the
problem. In the testing stage McKee says that one must monitor "how the farm
household actually copes with the reallocation of resources required by the
new requirements" (McKee 1984:602). In the final extension stage, McKee
argues that it is important "to involve women farmers and farm workers, as
well as female extension agents, in diffusing technologies for crops and tasks
in which women predominate" (McKee 1984:602).
The major thrust of this paper is that men as well as women agricultural
researchers and extensionists have to become involved and to target farmers of
both genders. The argument here first considers the gender-related
characteristics of extension services and how these characteristics affect
reaching a variety of farmers, especially women. Then a case study from
Malawi shows that women are important in agriculture but neglected in
extension services and in the practice of FSR&E. In order to study and
correct the problem, two sets of trials are considered here. In one, a
sophisticated analysis shows the results of using different groups of farmers
in the sample. In another, mechanisms by which the male staff can work with
women farmers are discerned. Based on the lessons learned, the paper concludes
with a mechanism whereby the male extensionists are legitimate and mandated
to work with female farmers.
Page 5
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTENSION SERVICES
Usually it is the male extension personnel who work with farming systems
researchers to locate, interview, select trial cooperators, and target
disseminators. The number of male extension workers far exceeds the number of
women who receive training and who are employed as extensionists in most
places. Many writers comment on the paucity of female extension workers
compared with male ones (Jiggins 1984, Berger et al 1984, Staudt 1975-76;-
1978; Fresco 1984). The data show that worldwide (including North America and
Europe) only 19% of the agricultural extension staff members are women. The
average number of female extensionists for Africa is 3%; for Latin America and
the Caribbean it is 14%, and for Asia and Oceania the figure is 23%. Only in
the Philippines are 40% of the staff members female. Table 1 gives the
figures as of 1981 for these regions. Berger et al. (1984) estimate that of
extensionists specially designated as agriculturalists, 41% do home economics
rather than agriculture. Tables 2 and 3 show the number of men and women
trained in two countries where women are critical in agricultural production:
Malawi in Southern Africa and Nepal in Asia. These tables show that women
extensionists also are to be found in the bottom education tier and that their
training is much shorter than the training for men. A consequence of this is
that women extensionists often are not regarded as professionally competent as
men in their knowledge of field crops and of livestock. What is not evident
in the tables is that female workers are often pressured to work in home
economics programs rather than to work in the agricultural programs for which
they were trained. The contacts of female workers with male farmers tend to
be limited; concomitantly, the male extensionists tend to deal with male
farmers rather than with all farmers (Jiggins 1984 Part 3:16). Whereas it is
Page 6
often the case that only a small proportion of farmers are reached by the
extension service in any case, there is no reason to restrict extension to
only male farmers.
In the extension service itself, male personnel hold a variety of positions,
including decision-making ones that affect programs and policies. The female
extensionists, with the exception of a few supervisors, usually are
concentrated in the lower ranks. Often male workers are given the tasks of
offering concrete agricultural services either through the training and visit
system or through other regimes, while the female workers are supposed to form
women's groups for small scale income generation activities. Most extension
services in developing countries were modeled after the systems in North
America and Western Europe during the last century with men providing
agricultural information to male farmers and women providing home economics
and nutrition information to women (Mead 1976; Berger et al. 1984).
Ironically, home economics programs in the developed countries have changed a
great deal since the 1930's and have become relevant to the needs of
American farm women today, focusing on such topics as human development,
consumer education, household finances and marketing. By contrast, the
teaching of domestic science in Africa is mostly focused on sewing,
embriodery, cooking and basic hygiene/nutrition. Coupled with this is the
notion that there is better communication between members of the same sex than
between members of the opposite sex. Sometimes these notions are strongly
stated in terms of tradition or cultural constraints and operationalized so
that only women are slated to work with women and only men are slated to work
with men. However, the paucity of women in agricultural services assures that
rural women will remain uncontacted and unassisted. Although it is probably
true that many people prefer to learn or to work with people of their same
Page 7
sex, coeducational programs have worked in a large portion of the world.
Berger et al. remark that "since very little empirical work has been done in
this area, there is really no basis on which to judge the relative
effectiveness of men and women agents in assisting women farmers" (1984: ).
The Integrated Cereals Project in Nepal funded by USAID studied women's
contribution to agriculture in four areas of the country and queried how women
farmers could most effectively be reached (Shrestha et al. 1984). In this
case because of women's important role in the agricultural system, it was
"posited that unless new information, methods, and techniques are made
available to women, major potential change agents in the agricultural labor
force are being by-passed" (Shrestha et. al. 1984:6). When questioned, the
women farmers said they did most of the agricultural work (79%) and more than
a third (35%) of the decision-making (Table 4). The female extensionists
agreed with the female farmers but the male extensionists thought women did
only some of the work and were not involved in decision-making. The male
workers were therefore "unlikely to perceive female farmers as important
recipients of extension information" (Shrestha et. al. 1984:29) and this
undoubtedly constrained their contacts with women. Concomitantly, female
farmers did not think of themselves as recipients of extension information.
However,'there were contacts by male extension agents to family members as
reported by female farmers. The data showed that three fourths of the male
extensionists did talk with women but only sporadically (about only 16% of
their contacts are women); however, one fourth never contacted women (Table
5). Female farmers were asked if they would visit male and female
extensionists. Table 6 shows that almost all the women farmers said they
would seek out a female extensionist and would go their homes for advice, a
common practice of male farmers towards male extensionists. Fewer would ask a
Page 8
male extensionist or visit their houses. Yet, in the areas where fewer women
would contact the male extensionists, male extensionists had visited the women.
This case illustrates that people prefer to work with people of the same
gender, but in practice farmers work with those who have the knowledge, power,
and access to resources. It should also be mentioned that only 2.5% of all
extension workers in Nepal are female, so the possibility of having a woman
agent nearby is remote.
Because of the polarization of the extension service in many places, there is
little or no way to account for the variety of real situations and to take
into account the needs of the various household members. Some households may
share resources well and have a division of labor that is complementary.
There are households where husbands may preempt resources that other household
members helped to generate. In some households both husband and wife are full
time farmers; in others the husband may be absent and may or may not send
remittances while the wife does the farming; in still others a woman will have
no male labor or support; in some households only the husband will farm or the
wife is a part-time assistant. These varieties of intrahousehold dynamics and
access to services and resources by different family members have to be
considered in the design of technology testing and dissemination.
Part of the reason that it is difficult to reach the women in the practice of
FSR&E is that researchers make use of the extension and research services as
they are already set up in the host country. Farming systems researchers
accept the bias of the system either because they do not recognize it as such
and/or because it coincides with their own. In recent years there has been a
reexamination of the assumptions behind the sexual segregation in extension
and research programs. In a number of places, the policies have become
Page 9
non-discriminatory so that in terms of policy women farmers can apply for credit
or they can be part of the FSR&E programs, although in practice the number of
participants is low (Delancy 1984). The question to be asked is what would
happen if the equation were changed and if extension and research programs in
practice were geared to all farmers irregardless of sex. This might even
entail new procedures to target and reach the neglected farmers rather than
the standard procedure of assuming that one method works for all. A case
study from Malawi examines the problem of relying on male extensionists in
FSR&E and reports on some methods that were undertaken to change extension and
FSR procedures in order to reach female as well as male farmers.
CASE STUDY FROM MALAWI
Between 1981 and 1983, I directed an agricultural development project funded
by the Office of Women in Development and housed within the Ministry of
Agriculture in Malawi (Spring 1985). The Women in Agricultural Development
Project (WIADP) was of national scope and its aims were multifaceted: to
research women's and men's roles in smallholder farming; to use farming
systems research to ascertain smallholder, and especially women's needs; to
disaggregate agricultural data by sex; to work with extension and research
units to target women as well as men farmers; to evaluate women's programs;
and to orient policy makers to consider women farmers in agricultural
programs. Primary and secondary research by the WIADP showed the
contributions by gender for various commodities (Clark 1975; Spring, Smith and
Kayuni 1983b). Women indeed did form the bulk of the agriculturalists in the
rural areas. They spent as much time on their farm work as on their domestic
work. Approximately one third of the households in the country were headed by
Page 10
women, but in some areas as many as 45% of the households were female headed.
Women were taking over more of the management of family farms. This was true
not only in households that they headed, but in married households because of
male out migration for wage labor in cities and in the agricultural estate
sector. Women were involved in a variety of cropping patterns from mixed
subsistence to cash crops. They grew maize, groundnuts, rice, cassava,
tobacco, cotton coffee and tea. They worked on both food and cash crops doing
many of the operations such as spraying cotton and planting tobacco seedlings
that were commonly believed to be done by men only (Clark 1975). In fact,
farm operations were differential by sex in some areas and in some households,
while in other places and households they were not. The so-called standard
sexual division of labor where men prepared the land and women planted, weeded
and harvested had given way to expediency in many places (Spring, Smith and
Kayuni 1983b). The adult who was home on the farm did the operations and in
many cases this meant that the women were doing the work and making the farm
decisions. Women were involved in all aspects of farming including land
clearing, plowing, applying fertilizer, crop protection, etc., either
routinely or when male labor was unavailable. Women in many areas were
involved in the care of livestock, especially of small ruminants and poultry.
Free ranging cattle were mostly owned by men and cared for by boys and men,
but as the animals were brought into the village for fattening in
stall-feeding projects, their care fell to women (Spring 1986a).
Agricultural development projects increased the amount of time in hours per
day and in days per month that both men and women had to work (Clark 1975).
The agricultural services provided by integrated development and localized
projects that included such services as training, input and credit programs,
and agricultural extension, mostly by-passed women. For many households this
Page 11
meant that the efficiency of their farming was reduced. However, there were
some women who were able to participate in development programs in order to
increase their productivity. There were some male extensionists who included
women farmers with the male farmers they targeted for training, credit and
visits (Spring, Smith and Kayuni 1983b).
The WIADP documented the delivery of agricultural extension services to men
and to women in a variety of ways. First, the WIADP analyzed the extension
survey that was part of a large national multi-instrument survey conducted by
the Ministry of Agriculture and financed by the World Bank. Second, the
WIADP interviewed and observed extension personnel in the field in terms of
the way they worked with clients. Third, the WIADP conducted FSR&E surveys
and trials and studied the ways the extension personnel were utilized to
identify and to work with farmers. Fourth, meetings and interviews were held
with the staff and management of agricultural projects who supervised
extension and research efforts to examine their procedures.
The results from the national survey (The National Sample Survey of
Agriculture or NSSA) showed that farmers' contact with extension workers in
terms of personal and field visits, attendance at group meeting and
demonstrations, and participation in training courses were differential by sex
(Table 7). The data showed that contact with extension workers was the major
source of advice for both men and women farmers, but that men received more
personal visits and more advice than women. Group meetings tended to reach
more farmers than personal visits, but men were the primary participants.
Relatively few farmers.of either sex viewed extension demonstrations, but more
men than women learned from this method. Field visits reached even fewer
women and the WIADP observed that many male extensionists simply dismissed the
Page 12
women working in the fields while they concentrated on the men.
The WIADP disaggregated the NSSA data into three categories: male household
heads, female household heads and wives of the male household heads. The data
showed that men received more services than women and often wives received
more services than female household heads. The data also showed that very few
wives received agricultural information from their husbands. The presumed
transfer of technology from husbands to wives and from men to women in the
household did not take place. The assumption that if men are trained or
assisted that other family members learned or were assisted was not confirmed
by the data (Spring, Smith and Kayuni 1983b).
In terms of the practice of FSR surveys and trials it was the uncommon
situation where women farmers were contacted by reconnaissance or survey teams
or where they were part of the recommendations domains discerned. There was a
tendency for the host country and expatriate researchers to ignore the women
in the fields during rapid reconnaissance surveys. When production and social
scientists relied on the extension workers, which they often did, the
extension workers tended to take them to interview and work with the men. In
terms of on-farm farmer managed trials, only male cooperators were selected.
Sometimes the male cooperators carried out trial work themselves. Other times
their wives and female relatives assisted or did much of the work, sometimes
producing errors in the way the trials were conducted. (This is probably
because these women had not received the instruction and the male cooperators
did not pass on the information.) In order to understand the problem, the
WIADP asked trial cooperators who actually performed each operation. The
information obtained showed that wives and female relatives carried out many
of these tasks (Spring's notes from Kawinga and Phalombe FSR surveys).
Page 13
The WIADP participated in several attempts to remedy the way in which surveys
and trials were conducted. Concerning surveys, the WIADP conducted its own
FSR surveys in three different regions of the country and worked with a German
team in Central Region (Spring 1982; Spring, Kayuni and Smith 1982; Spring,
Smith and Kayuni 1983a). Each time, there was a tendency on the part of the
male extension workers who accompanied the teams to direct the teams to the
better male farmers. In order to remedy the situation, it was explained to
staff and team members that it was necessary to examine a range of
environments, family types, and economic situations.
The WIADP
prepared guide sheets that detailed the types of households and families that
needed to be considered and requested that the following categories of farmers
be sampled by teams doing the diagnostic survey:
1. A diversity of economic situations: low resources farmers,
including those who must work for others; subsistence farmers;
and wealthy farmers who grow cash crops and hire laborers.
2. A diversity of household types: families composed of (a) a
wife, a husband and children; (b) a husband, two or more wives
and children; (c) a married woman with children, but the husband
was away; and (d) an unmarried woman and children.
3. A diversity of ages and life-cycle situations: older people
and recent widows and widowers; young couples just beginning
to farm; long time farmers; and women recently divorced or
on their own (Spring 1982).
Page 14
It also helped to have women researchers and extensionists on the teams, and
subsequently it became fairly standard practice to have women on FSR teams.
(The new program of FSR using adaptive research teams in the country specifies
that there should be a woman on each team (Kay Pasley: personal
communication).
Concerning trials, the WIADP conducted its own and worked with another USAID
project on its trials (Hansen 1986). Two examples of trials that included
female farmers illustrate the problems in obtaining women cooperators as well
as the lessons learned by considering women. The first example concerns
trials held in a low resource area--where there is land shortage and a
drought-prone climate--and where 37% of the households were headed by women.
Average holding size was one hectare, but more than 60% of the households
cultivated less than a hectare and almost a third cultivated less than half a
hectare. Male out-migration was pronounced and women and children remained to
work family farms. The trials consisted of comparing an improved cultivar
with a local variety with "a simple non-replicated 2 x 2 factorial arrangement
with two maize varieties and two levels of fertilizer (0 and 30 kg N/ha)"
(Hildebrand and Poey 1985:127-8). Since area farmers intercrop, all the
treatments had a mix of maize, cowpeas and sunflowers (Hansen 1986).
It was specifically requested to the village headmen and to the extension
workers who selected the farmers that half of the cooperating farmers be women.
However, only 40% in one village and 30% in the second village were women. In
some cases the women and the men farmers selected in a village sometimes were
not comparable as farmers. The men tended to be vigorous individuals in their
middle years and many were high resource farmers who owned cattle. Most of
Page 15
the women tended to be low resource, older individuals at the end of their
life cycle. They were probably selected because age is revered and it was
considered an honor to be selected, perhaps more so for women than for men.
Therefore, comparisons between male and female farmers in terms of management
and yields would not be valid to show gender differences in farming skills
(Table 8). However, the data show differences between high and low resource
farmers and more women are in the latter category. A modified stability analy-
sis was carried out on these data by Hildebrand (Hildebrand and Poey 1985:126-
134) and by Hansen (1986). Because of the inclusion of a range of farmers,
young and old and male and female, an evaluation of the types of environments
could be made where "environment...becomes a continuous quantifiable variable
whose range is the range of yields from the trial" (Hildebrand and Poey 1985:
126). The analysis showed that in the same area there were a range of environ-
ments in terms of farmer management, soils, rainfall and the like, and that
the cultivars respond differently. The local cultivar was superior in poor
maize environments while the improved maize was superior in poor maize environ-
ments while the improved maize was superior in "good" maize environments (Tables
9a and 9b). Both cultivars responded "favorably to fertilizer in both good
and poor environments" (Hildebrand and Poey 1985:129). The data showed that
there were two different recommendation domains. And although there were
both men and women in each domain, there was a tendency for the women farmers
to be in the poorer environment most likely because they were low resource
farmers to begin with. Further analysis using confidence levels allowed the
high and low environment farms to be compared. The results showed that only
farmers in the better environments should choose the improved variety (the
composite) and that they should fertilize the crop (Table 10a). In the poorer
environments, the local variety was better (Table 10b). Fertilizer helped,
but only for the farmers who could afford it. The final recommendation was
"to fertilize the local maize variety in the
Page 16
poorer environment and to use the composite maize with fertilizer in the
better environment" (Hildebrand and Poey 1985:132). It should also be
mentioned that farmers who owned cattle and used the manure of their fields
were in the better environments. Women did not own cattle too frequently,
although the one high resource farmer in the sample did. By comparing people
at different ends of the spectrum, two recommendation domains were
discernable. All but one of the farmers in the better environment were men.
Most of the farmers in the poorer environments were women, although there were
some men. This showed that recognizing different segments of the population,
including those at particular risk, resulted in the delineation of multiple
domains and technology solutions. The female headed households constrained by
labor and cash would find it difficult to use fertilizer and this coupled with
their smaller holdings and lack of extension advice would make their use of
the improved cultivar disastrous.
Yet should these problem households be ignored? Another study on these
households documented that they were being ignored by extension an credit
programs (Evans 1981). To remedy the situation, methods were devised by a
British researcher that involved several steps. First, the cooperation of
male extensionists and male village leaders was required to bring women into
the extension arena and to enable them to articulate their problems. Second,
the notions of credit "worthiness" had to be changed. Finally, the actual
credit packages had to be modified. To do this, male village leaders were
asked to designate women farmers for leadership training. The women were
taught leadership skills by both male and female extension personnel. Then
they were able to articulate their problems in farming. In general, they
noted that extension services by-passed them in terms of credit and training.
In particular, it eventually became clear to the male staff members that,
Page 17
because of the women's small land holdings and because of their risk-averting
practice of intercropping, the standard credit packages of improved seed and
fertilizers (in multiples of one acre) were too large. The solution to credit
services by-passing women was to instruct the male staff members to target women.
But a method of determining "credit-worthiness" (usually defined by collateral
or membership in the mostly male farmers' clubs) had to be devised and a way
to pay back the cash for.inputs had to be found. These women were not members
of farmers clubs organized by the male workers and they lacked collateral so
their "credit worthiness" was nil. A new method was devised in which they could
be vouched for by male village headmen. Also it was unknown as to how these
women would pay back the loan. These households would have no cash sales, because
the inputs were helping them to attain food self-sufficiency. (It was known
that women in general are particularly conscientious about repaying loans.)
The women, much to everyone's surprise, began paying back the loan from the sale
of beer and crafts even prior to the harvest (Evans 1983).
The solution to the actual credit package itself was the creation of mini-tech-
nical (for 1/2 acre) packages of fertilizer and seed. With the assistance of
male extension staff, the number of women getting credit in the project increased
from 5% to 20% of the credit recipients in a single year. These households went
from food deficient to food self-sufficient households. However, non-standard
techniques had to be used and the male extension staff members contacts with
women farmers were important to the success of the endeavor.
The second example of using women as trial cooperators concerns demonstrations
and trials with soybeans (Spring 1985, 1986b). In this situation, women were
targeted through their home economics classes to learn the recipes for using
soybeans. The Ministry of Agriculture determined that this crop would improve
Page 18
the rural diet that was deficient in fats and proteins. However, only the
female staff members were used to reach the women and they only taught recipes
but not methods to cultivate the crop. (The female extensionists did not know
how to grow the crop and lacked training on rhizobium inoculation and the use
of fertilizers.' In a test of whether or not the male extension staff could
work with women farmers, the WIADP held demonstrations one year and gave
inputs and instruction to 59 female cooperators. There were a range of
environments and it was possible to compare the performance of women farmers.
The better farmers had better management and viable inoculum. The poorer
farmers had problems with pests and unviable inoculum because they failed to
reinoculate after late rains and delayed planting. As a result of the
demonstrations and surveys of both men and women farmers involved in soybean
production in a number of areas, the-problem of how to get viable inoculum to
the rural areas was identified as a general problem affecting both men and
women. In addition, there were gender-specific smallholder problems such as
the lack of training and the limited seed given to women. Trials were held
the following year with 20 female cooperators selected by the male extension
staff. In addition to trying to solve the technical problems, two other
questions were asked. Could women do on-farm research with precision? Could
the male extension staff work with women and what were the methods that worked
best? The answers to both of the questions were affirmative. The women were
able to learn the procedures for the trials with precision. Special
techniques were used to instruct them and to test their knowldege of the
techniques before they planted their trials. Second, the male extension staff
had no difficulty in identifying, instructing, and monitoring the women coopera-
tors (Spring 1986b).
To capitalize on the discovery that women could be part of trials and participate
Page 19
in extension services, and that the male staff could work with women (in terms
of instruction, visits, monitoring crops and the like), the WIADP prepared an
extension circular. The circular was unique in that it was issued by the
Ministry of Agriculture rather than by the WIADP. Extension circulars from
the MOA are regarded as technical recommendations to be distributed to the
entire extension staff and to be heeded by them. Although the general policy
for the delivery of extension services is "non-discriminatory", the data
showed that women were not being contacted as too few received credit and
other services. There was need to legitimate the fact that male extensionists
all over the country could work with women as well as with men farmers in
their areas and that working with women farmers was not only the concern of
the few female extensionists (who consisted of 150 out of 1850 extension
workers). The circular was entitled "Reaching Female Farmers Through Male
Extension Workers" and was published in August 1983 (MOA 1983). An article in
the national newspaper marked its distribution to all grass roots workers and
to agricultural project management. The Circular drew attention to the fact
that extension services need to reach women because of women's involvement in
Malawi's smallholder agricultural sector. It stated that some people might
want to argue that women are interested in home economics rather than in
agricultural training that has mostly been directed to men. It pointed out
that where women have been offered agricultural programs,.they have learned
new technologies and increased their production. The circular used
photographs taken from the MOA's own collection and depicted women in various
farming operations, attending extension demonstrations led by male
extensionists, attending village meetings with male farmers, receiving credit
inputs along with men, and exhibiting a certificate of recognition for
excellence in farming.
Page 20
The Circular presented methods for improving the delivery of extension
services to women and for getting women into extension and research
activities. Techniques were given as to how to encourage women to attend
village meetings and agricultural training courses, and how to increase
women's participation in credit programs and farmers' clubs. The male
extensionists were directed to include women at their demonstrations, trials
and field days. They were also told to keep records of contacts and program
involvement in terms of the number of women and men participating. Detailed
suggestions were offered for recruiting women farmers, the use of leadership
training so that women might learn to express their problems, and techniques
to increase participation in credit and soil conservation programs. It was
noted that there are a variety of household types and that women both as wives
and as heads of households need to be targeted.
Prior to the Circular,some male extensionists included women farmers in their
programs, but in general, the inclusion of women was neither consistent nor
reflective of women's contributions and needs in an area. Most male
extensionists believed that women farmers were to be contacted by female
extension workers and that rural women should study home economics. The
Circular legitimate and mandated that the male extensionists work with women
farmers in the smallholder sector.
These techniques might not work in every corner of the world, but the general
argument that says that men cannot work with women farmers needs to be
reexamined. New methods and techniques have to be devised that are feasible
and that consider cultural traditions. In addition, the female extensionists
must not be left out. The number being trained in agricultural subjects must
be increased. Incentives and promotions are also necessary for them. In
Page 21
addition, the curriculum of the home economics courses for rural women must be
modified to include materials that are directly related to women's productive
roles.
CONCLUSIONS
Those involved in FSR must be prepared to keep their eyes open at all stages
of the work. .In the pre-diagnostic stage .they must consider primary and
secondary sources that detail the sexual division of labor and the changing
roles of various household members. Sometimes this type of information is
available, other times it must be collected in the field. An example of a
focus on women's roles in crop production was prepared for a commodity
oriented project. The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program,
funded by USAID, specifically developed resource guides for a number of
African and Latin American countries. These guides detail women's roles in
agriculture and the ways that breeders and other production scientists can
make use of this information (Fergusen and Home 1985). Where this type of
information is not readily available, researchers may have to disaggregate
agricultural data sets in order to ascertain gender differences or to collect
their own data from local women and men farmers.
In the practice of FSR&E, researchers must confront extension workers with the
need to include in their surveys a diversity of farmers in terms of resources,
household and family types, and to consider people at different points of the
life cycle in the diagnostic stage. Strict instructions need to be given to
extension personnel for them to include in their surveys a) low as well as
high resource farmers, b) women farmers with both low and high resources, and
Page 22
c) women as both household heads and wives. The sexual division of labor and
differential management strategies will have to be discerned. If questions on
the allocation of labor and resources, problems and needs, remuneration and
investments cannot be answered for different categories of farmers, the work
is incomplete. If only men provide the answers about women, the data are most
likely biased.
In the design of trials, intrahousehold dynamics and the needs of various
household members must be considered; a range of farmers and of environments
need to be included. In the actual trials, women as well as men have to
participate as cooperators. In some trials it may be necessary to restrict
the cooperators to the sex that actually is responsible for a particular
commodity, e.g., groundnuts are often -grown by women in some areas. In
others, recognition of the fact that women and men do different farm
operations means that both male and female household members will have to be
considered as trial participants and that both will have to be instructed
accordingly. The extension and research workers who will help select and
monitor the trials will require strict instructions as to how to choose and to
work with these farmers. Researchers should not be fearful about including a
range of environments, but they need to be careful about selecting too many
farmers in certain categories and in comparing farmers at different resource
levels. Recommendation domains and technologies tested may or may not be
gender specific.
In the dissemination of information, the male research and extension staff
members will be important to the success of adopting a technology. The WIADP
recognized that it was often difficult for individual extension workers on
their own to make special attempts to deal with neglected segments of the
Page 23
population. It might be particularly difficult for male extensionists to take
it upon themselves to deal with women. Usually however, the FSR&E personnel
will have the clout to influence policy and sometimes to provide motivation
and incentives for the work that extension is doing. FSR&E personnel can
therefore attempt to set the tone and to require that women as well as men be
targeted. They can assist extension workers in discovering the techniques
that will work in an area.
The only way to ascertain if these steps have been followed is to monitor the
various phases in the practice of FSR&E and to disaggregate the data by sex.
This means that the target farmers, the data generated from them, the adopters
and laggards will have to be specified in terms of male and female farmer.
The notion that technology is gender-neutral will have to be examined in terms
of who the recipients are as well as the consequences of the technology to the
household and to its constituent members.
TABLE 1: MALE AND FEMALE EXTENSION PERSONNEL IN AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS:
AFRICA, ASIA AND THE PACIFIC, LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN,
AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Agriculture
M F
Home
Economics
M F
Other
M F
Total
M F
Botswana
Gabon
Gambia
Mauritius
Namibia
Nigeria
Senegal
Seychelles
South Africa
Togo
Tunisia
Zimbabwe
ASIA AND
THE PACIFIC
American Samoa
Korea
Malaysia
Maldives
Nepal
New Caledonia
Philippines
Thailand
Tonga
186
80
170
56
11
1106
1088
11
1107
1682
4
104
3
3
Agriculture
2 178
- 11
457
18
8
680
1 71
3
2 563'
212
12
551
Home
Economics
9 364
2 91
9 627
2 74
- 20
9 1786
- 1159
1 14
- 1670
- 212
3 12
72 2233
Other
Total
M F M F M F M F
4
4651
2612
6
5000
36
6767
3672
23
383
3642
936
- 10
2 342 2647
- 384 1141
3
132
1 69
- 1270 4639
.7 765 2002
- 9 44
6
105
3
17
20
2702
84
1
14
7300
3753
9
5132
105
11406
5701
67
Vanuatu 44
AFRICA
% Female
24
2
15
2
4
113
4
4
2
3
95
6
2
2
3
17
6
3
22
0
0
20
4
% Female
-
348
872
3
17
21
7614
1785
10
TABLE 1 (continued)
LATIN AMERICA AND
THE CARIBBEAN
Belize
Bermuda
Bolivia
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Honduras
St. Kitts, Nevis,
Anguilla, St. Vincent
Trinidad & Tobago
Uruguay
MIDDLE EAST
Bahrain
Jordan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab
Emirates
Yemen People's
iDem. Rep.
Source:
Home
Agriculture Economics Other Total % Female
M F M F M F M F
35
5
122
57
128
27
254
180
31
118
33
- 45
- 76
- 64
- 53
13
6
36
168
215
32
57
288
156
48
- 11
158
0 225
il 343
2 59
1 57
S 542
8 336
- 1 10
- 19
- 148
Agriculture
Home
Economics
41
137
181
Other
0
0
0
27
29
15
2
11
16
11
7
14
85
137
10
1
64
63
5
10
30
Total
% Female
M F M F M F M F
5
90
8
208
- .3
- 98
- 2
- 424
1 8
188
10
632
38 2 121
Burton E. Swanson and Joffar Rassi, International Directory of National
Extension Systems (Urbana/Champaign: University of Illinois, Bureau of
Educational Research, 1981) as quoted in Berger, Marguerite et al.
Bridging the Gender Gap in Agricultural Extension. International Center
for Research on Women. Washington, D.C. 1984.
TABLE 2: AGRICULTURAL TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN MALAWI
NUMBER OF GRADUATES AT BUNDA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
(DEGREE, DIPLOMA), COLBY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
THUCHILA FARM INSTITUTE (FARM HOME ASSISTANTS) BY
YEAR AND SEX
Bunda Colby Thuchila*
Degree (5 yr) Diploma (3 yr) (2 yr) (1 yr)
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Female
* Course for Female Only
TOTAL 273 24 797 124 2255 45 291
% Female 8% 13% 2% Average/yr 22
TABLE 3: TRAINING FOR EXTENSION AGENTS IN NEPAL 1983-84*
Duration of Course
Males
Enrolled
Females
Enrolled
3 years 73 0 0.0
84 2 2.3
150 1 0.7
2 years 248 .2 0.8
196 2 1.0
170 0 0.0
1 year 216 1 0.5
172 3 1.7
1 month 25 0 0.0
200 0 0.0
28 100.0
TOTAL
1534
2.5
* Source: After Shrestha, Padma et al. Planning Extension for Farm Women,
Integrated Cereals Project, USAID Kathmandu, Nepal, 1984, p. 64.
Percent
Female
TABLE 4: PERCEPTION OF FEMALE CONTRIBUTION TO ON-FARM WORK AND
DECISION-MAKING (PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID
WOMEN'S CONTRIBUTION TO WORK/DECISION-MAKING IS MORE
THAN THAT OF MALE'S)
Female Farmer.s Extension Agents
Hill
Area
Terai
Area
Female
AAa
Male
AA
JT/JTAb AD&O
Status of
Women Report
Work 78 80 72 26 56 22 67
Decision-making 31 38 52 20 0 0 42
Source: Shrestha, Padma et al. Planning Extension for Farm Women, Integrated.
Cereals Project, USAID Kathmandu, Nepal,. 1984, p. 29.
Women's
Contribution to
TABLE 5: CONTACTS BY EXTENSION AGENTS PER MONTH REPORTED
BY FEMALE FARMERS IN NEPAL (FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES)*
Area
Type of 1 2 3 4
Extension Agent Dang Parsa Lamjung Dhankuta Total
Male JT/JTAb 21 26 8 8 63 (58%)
Male AAa 1 23 2 2 28 (26%)
Female JT/JTA 1 -- 1 ( 1%)
Female AA 16 -- 16 (15%)
TOTAL 39(36%) 4946%) 10(9%) 10 (9%) 108 (100%)
a =
b =
TABLE 6: MOBILITY OF FEMALE FARMERS VS. SEX OF EXTENSION AGENT
BY DISTRICT IN NEPAL (PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN EACH
CATEGORY RESPONDING AS SUCH)*
Area
1 2 3 4
Dang Parsa Lamjung Dhankuta Total
Would go to a male 8 20 50 33 29
extension agent
Would talk to a male 18 35 75 50 46
extension agent in home
Would go to a female 94 90 92 94 93
extension agent
Would talk to a female 100 100 97 100 99
extension agent in home
*Source: Shrestha, Padma et
Integrated Cereals
p. 31 & 52.
al. Planning Extension for Farm Women,
Project, USAID Kathmandu, Nepal, 1984,
M r"
h
II
CD
0.-)
-Ju,
OQ J
(D w/
0UJ~
3= D
OLI
*w L)J
ww
UJ UJ
-I-
cc
OLLI
cno
OV)
UJi-i
ce
CD F
z
ULu
QOfs
0 CO
w
3XT
SULL
I-,
UJ
Lu a
4.
Lu|
U-
0 3
Q0Q
>- ^LL
I- 3=
enL o
CM <*
0 e f en
0 4 -4
q-
S11 %0 %0
llr %0 V-4 "-
C
LA.
El
In
q C 0 CGoM
CM (CM r-4 I
V-4 -4
co CV) Let L)
"M V- In
C
ci
a,
*
4.1
I
.0
*1-t
5-
to
'r
Q.
S
gO
0
LE
ci
5
0
r-
co
.0
4.)
c1
01
0
*0
c1
*4J
1a
4->
.0
4-,
5-
*o
c
10
a)
*o
C,
'a
*0
V)
*0
0)
.r
1
ci
In
I-
a,
IL
.9
L c
Zn
c
4.
*r-
*P
0 Oct
*- V)
UI-
c 4)
$- 3-
'a
,=
%-
Q. L
01
C0 C
Lm >I
L- 0
C C
o "
LI
4)U 0
SGO
i- i
,- w
u- c
Q0.
c a) i
L' 1w--
1
TABLE 8: MAIZE YIELD FROM FARMER-MANAGED, ON-FARM
TRIALS, PHALOMBE, MALAWI, 1981/1982
Farmers in first village
Treatments 1 2 3 4* 5 6* 7* 8
Treatment
Mean for
Village
----------------------t/ha--------------
Local Maize
Local Maize Fertilizer
Composite
Composite Fertilizer
Mean for Farmer
2.2
3.6
3.5
5.0
3.6
2.2
3.7
2.0
4.7
3.2
Farmers
1 2
1.9
4.3
2.9
4.3
3.3
in second
3 4*
1.3
2.3
0.6
2.4
1.7
0.9
2.3
0.5
1.7
1.3
1.0
3.1
0.6
3.0
1.9
0.5
2.8
0.3
2.8
1.6
village
5* 6*
Local Maize 1.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.6 1.3
Local Maize Fertilizer 3.2 2.5 2.9 1.2 1.9 0.8 2.1
Composite 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.9
Composite Fertilizer 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.6
Mean for Farmer 2.5 1.7 1.9 0.9 1.4 0.5
Data from Hansen 1985
* Female Farmer
Source: Hildebrand and Poey (1985) On-Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming
Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers:
Boulder, Colorado, p.
GRAIN YIELD RESPONSE FOR LOCAL MAIZE (L) AND CCA
COMPOSITE (C) TO ENVIRONMENT, WITHOUT FERTILIZER.
PHALOMBE PROJECT, MALAWI*
Y= 0.34 +0.51e
R2.71
Y= -0.87+ 1.03e
R2 .78
* *
la "0 i '
FI
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX
3 4
(e), metric tons
TABLE 9b: RESPONSE OF LOCAL MAIZE (L) AND CCA COMPOSITE (C)
TO ENVIRONMENT, WITH FERTILIZER, PHALOMBE PROJECT,
MALAWI*
5 YL0.77+0S8e Y -0.23+L46e
R.85 R2.89 ompoite ()
4 Locol (
2
-.
s 3
I 2 3
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX (s), metric tons
* Source:
Hildebrand, Peter E. and Federico Poey, On-Farm Agronomic
Trials in Farming Systems Research and Extension, Lynne
Rienner Publishers: Boulder, Colorado, pp. 129- 130.
TABLE ,a:
4
V
en
E
02
Ih
TABLE IOa:DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR GRAIN YIELD OF LOCAL
AND CCA COMPOSITE MAIZE, PHALOMBE PROJECT, MALAWI. HIGH ENVIRON-
MENTS FIVE FARMS WHERE AVERAGE YIELD (Y) GREATER THAN 2t/ha*
no fertilizer with fertilizer
-5
J
z
Z
W
Z
0
U
TABLE 10b:
YIELD (Y), metric tons/ha
DISTRIBUTION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR GRAIN-YIELD OF LOCAL
AND CCA COMPOSITE MAIZE, PHALOMBE PROJECT, MALAWI. LOW ENVIRON-
MENTS NINE FARMS WHERE AVERAGE YIELD (Y) LESS THAN 2t/ha *
with
no fertilizer fertilizer
P
(9 composite
CY mric to
YIELD (Y), metric tons/ho
*Source: Hildebrand, Peter E. and Federico Poey, On Farm Agronomic Trials
in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner
Publishers: Boulder, Colorado, pp. 133- 134.
REFERENCES
Berger, Margaruite, Virginia Delancey, and Ary Mellencamp
1984 Rridging the Gender Gap in Agricultural Extension. International
Center for Research on Women. Washington D.C.
Chaney, Elsa, and Martha Lewis
1980 Women, Migration and the Decline of Smallholder Agriculture.
Office of Women in Development, USAID, Washington, D.C.
Clark, Barbara : :
1975 The Work Done by Rural Women in Malawi. In Eastern Journal of Rural
Development, 8:2:80-91.
Delancy, Virginia
1984 Agricultural Extension for Women in Cameroon. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association. Los Angeles,
California.
Flora, Cornelia
1982 Farming Systems Research and the Land Grant System: Transforming
Assumptions Overseas. Farming Systems Research Paper Series, No. 3.
Kansas State University.
n.d. Intrahousehold Dynamics in Farming Systems Research: The Bais of
Whole Farm Monitoring of Farming Systems Research and Extension a
Position Paper. Mimeo. Intrahousehold Dynamics Case Studies Background
Paper.
Evans, Janis
1981 Phalombe Rural Development Project, Women's Programmes Programme
Plan. Blantyre Agricultural Development Division, Malawi, mimeo.
1983 Women's Involvement in the Seasonal Credit Programmes in the
Phalombe Rural Development Project. Mimeo. National Credit Seminar.
Chintheche, Malawi.
Ferguson, Anne, and Nancy Horn
1985 Situating Agricultural Research: Class and Gender Issues in Project
Advisement. In Women Creating Wealth: Transforming Economic Development.
R. Gallin and A. Spring, eds. Association for Women in Development.
Washington, D.C. pp 85-90.
Gladwin Christine, Kathleen Staudt, and Della McMillan
1984 Reaffirming the Agricultural Role of African Women: One Solution to
the Food Crisis. In Proceedings of the Association of Facilities of
Agriculture in Africa, Fifth General Conference on Food Security.
Manzini, Swaziland.
Hansen, Art
1986 Farming Systems Research in Phalombe, Malawi: The Limited Utility of
High Yielding Varieties. In Social Sciences and Farming Systems Research:
Methodological Perspectives on Agriculture and Development. J. Jones and
B. Wallace, eds. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. (in press)
Hildebrand, Peter, and Fredrico Poey
1985 On-Farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and Extension.
Lynne Rienner Press: Boulder, Colorado.
Jiggins, Janice
1984 Why Should Women in the Agricultural and Livestock Sectors of
Developing Countries Be a Major Concern of the CGIAR System? Working
Paper No. 1. Problem Identification, Research Models and Research
Assumption: The Implications for Women. Working Paper No. 2. Research-
Extension-Farmer Linkages: The Implications for Women. Working Paper
No. 3. Farming Systems Research: Do Any of the 'FSR' Models Offer a
Positive Capacity for Addressing Women's Agricultural Needs? Working
Paper No. 4. Mimeo.
Mead, Margaret
1976 A Comment on the Role of Women in Agriculture. In Women and World
Development. I. Tinker, M. Bo Bramsen and M. Buvinic, eds. New York,
Praeger. pp.
McKee, Catherine
1984 Methodological Challenges in Analyzing the Household in Farming
Systems Research: Intra-Household Resource Allocation. In Proceedings of
the Kansas State University's 1983 Farming Systems Research Symposium.
C. Flora, ed. Kansas State University. Manhattan, Kansas. pp.
MOA (Ministry of Agriculture)
1983 Reaching Female Farmers Through Male Extension Workers. Extension
Aids Circular 2/83. Malawi. 8 pp.
Rogers, Barbara
-1979- The Domestication of Women. New York, Tavistock.
Shrestha, P., L. Zivetz, B. Sharma, and S. Anderson
1984 Planning Extension for Farm Women. USAID Integrated Cereals Project.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Spring, Anita
1982 Adopting CIMMYT Farming Systems Survey Guidelines to the Malawian
Situation. Report No. 5. Mimeo. The Women in Agricultural Development
Project. Lilongwe, Malawi. 6 pp.
1984 Profiles of Men and Women Smallholders Farmers in the Lilongwe Rural
Development Project, Malawi Final Report. Office of Women in Development.
Washington, D.C. 144 pp.
1985a The Women in Agricultural Development Project in Malawi: Making
Gender Free Development Work. In Women Creating Wealth: Transforming
Economic Development. R. Gallin and A. Spring, eds. Association for
Women and Development. Washington, D.C. pp. 71-76.
1986a Men and Women Participants in a Stall Feeder Livestock Program in
Malawi. In Human Organization, 45:1:
1986b Trials and Errors: Using Farming Systems Research in Agricultural
Programs for Women. In Farming Systems Research: The Integration of
Social and Biological Approaches for Agricultural Development. J. Jones
and B. Wallace, eds. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. (in press)
Spring, Anita, Frieda Kayuni, and Craig Smith
1982 Karonga Farmer Survey. Report No. 12. Mimeo. The Women in
Agricultural Development Project. Lilongwe, Malawi. 28 pp.
Spring, Anita, Craig Smith, and Frieda Kayuni
1983a Studies of Agricultural Constraints Facing Women Farmers in
Phalombe Rural Development Project. Report No. 19. Mimeo. The Women
in Agricultural Development Project. Lilongwe, Malawi. 20 pp.
1983b Women Farmers in Malawi, Their Contribution to Agriculture and
Participation in Development Projects. Women in Development Office/USAID,
Washington, D.C. and Ministry of Agriculture, Lilongwe, Malawi. 193 pp.
|
RSS
HIDE
