• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Background
 Introduction
 AID's approach to gender analy...
 Gender analysis of AREP
 Conclusion
 Persons interviewed














Title: Gender factors in agricultural research and extension in the Eastern Caribbean
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089940/00001
 Material Information
Title: Gender factors in agricultural research and extension in the Eastern Caribbean consulting report submitted to Regional Development OfficeCaribbean (RDOC), U.S. Agencyt for International Development, Barbados
Physical Description: 16 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Schmink, Marianne
USAID Regional Development Office for the Caribbean
Donor: Marianne Schmink ( endowment )
Publication Date: 1989
Copyright Date: 1989
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Research -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Women in agriculture -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Barbados
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Marianne Schmink.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Typescript.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089940
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 51669639

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Background
        Page 1
    Introduction
        Page 2
    AID's approach to gender analysis
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Gender analysis of AREP
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Conclusion
        Page 15
    Persons interviewed
        Page 16
Full Text

I


MERGE
188


GENDER FACTORS IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION IN
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN


Consulting report submitted to:

Regional Development Office/Caribbean (RDO/C)
U.S. Agency for International Development
Barbados









Marianne Schmink
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611




January, 1989






ITD Library

9.ESc 23.
Schmink, M.







Table of Contents

I. Background 1

II. Introduction 2

III. AID's Approach to Gender Analysis 3

IV. Gender Analysis of AREP 5

A. Division of Labor; Resources; Income 5
B. Gender-Differentiated Stakes and Incentives 7
C. Problems Related to Gender and AREP 8
1. Farm family vs. gender analysis 8
2. Linkage of WID activities to project goals 9
3. WID monitoring and evaluation 9
4. Staff WID expertise 10

V. Recommendations 10
A. Recommendations for RDO/C 1 0
B. Recommendations for AREP 11
1. Design document 11
2. Institutional alternatives 12
3. Project adaptation 13
4. Pilot community effort 15

V. Conclusions 1 5


Appendix: Persons interviewed







I. Background

The Agricultural Research and Extension Project (AREP)
extends and integrates two previously successful RDO/C projects due
to terminate in 1989: support for Caribbean Agricultural Research
and Development Institute (CARDI) and for Caribbean Agricultural
Extension Project (CAEP). AREP's purpose is to strengthen the
institutional capability of regional research and extension
organizations to generate, develop, adapt, and disseminate continuing
streams of improved agricultural technologies (varieties/species and
management practice) which are responsive to the needs of the
participating countries and are widely adopted at the farm level.
During review of the AREP (previously called DAREEC) Project
Identification Document (PID), the role of women as decision-makers
in the agricultural production system was identified as an issue
which required additional analysis during project paper preparation.

The consultant was hired to assist RDO/C in the identification of
1) the role which women farmers play in the agricultural technology
generation and transfer system in the Eastern Caribbean, and 2)
interventions which the AREP project can make to strengthen the
capacity of regional agricultural research and extension organizations
to support women farmers. Specific tasks were to:

1) review existing documentation on women in the technology
generation and transfer system in the Eastern Caribbean;

2) discuss the issue with a sampling of researchers,
extensionists, development specialists, women farmers and women's
groups in the Eastern. Caribbean, and

3) identify specific interventions which the project can make
to strengthen the capacity of regional research and extension
organizations in supporting women farmers.

The consultant spent eight days (2-9 January, 1989) including
travel time, visiting Barbados, St. Lucia and Trinidad Howard
Batson joined her for Barbados and St. Lucia interviews. She spoke
with sixteen people in the RDO/C office; CARDI; CAEP/University of
the West Indies (UWI) Extension; Women and Development (WAND)
Unit of the UWI Extra-Mural Department, Barbados; Caribbean
Association for Feminist Research and Action (CAFRA); and UWI
Women and Development (WID) Studies (see list in appendix). She







also drew heavily on a prior analysis of the CAEP carried out in 1985
for a PPC/CDIE study.1 Before departure from Barbados on 9 January
the consultant prepared a report in outline form and presented a
verbal briefing, based on those notes. This report follows the outline
of that verbal presentation.

I, Introduction

It is generally recognized in the Eastern Caribbean that women
are important economic actors, especially in agriculture and
marketing. The institutions of the region have the potential to apply
this awareness of gender's importance to their agricultural
development efforts. There is an existing data base sufficient to
indicate many of the specific aspects of gender that are relevant to
the work of agricultural research and extension activities in the
region. Several regional institutions can provide expertise to these
institutions regarding Women-in-Development issues. These
conditions provide a favorable environment to implement an
exemplary WID effort that will have a positive impact on project
success and on development prospects in the region. The AREP
project now being prepared by the RDO/C office provides a
significant potential opportunity to: 1) serve as a model of a gender-
sensitive, mainstream project; 2) have a measureable impact on
farmers, including women; and 3) improve the application of A.I.D.'s
policies regarding attention to gender as an important development
variable.

New congressional actions in 1988 require that project
documents show greater attention to gender analysis, and that
Missions and Bureaus. develop WID strategy statements.2 Yet many
AI officers have not'been exposed sufficiently to WID issues to
clearly understand the specific terms of "gender analysis" as defined
by AID. Therefore, this report is introduced by a brief discussion of
AID's approach to gender analysis. The report also makes several
recommendations .for implementation of a WID strategy within the
RDO/C office.

1 The results of the 1985 assessment of incorporation of gender analysis into
CAEP will be published as one of ten case studies in Vol. II of Women in
Development: A.T.D's Experience. 1973-1985. Vol. I, Synthesis Paper by Alice S.
Carloni was published as A.I.D. Program Evaluation Report No. 18, April 1987
(Washington: A.I.D., PPC/CDIE).
2 Memo of 21 December, 1988 from Michael R. Taylor to Project Officers,
SAID, RDO/C.








The primary focus of the report consists of a succinct diagnosis
of gender as a significant variable in Eastern Caribbean agriculture,
and in the regional research and extension programs. Specific
problems in the conceptual and operational dimensions of project
activities will be identified. The final section of the report spells out
specific recommendations for the AREP project design document,
institutional framework, and implementation.

III. AID's Approach to Gender Analysis

WID policies and practices have evolved rapidly within AID
over the past fifteen years. In 1973 the Percy Amendment first
mandated that AID's development work incorporate attention to
women's roles in economic development. The WID office was created
to establish and implement that policy. The office developed a
training program based on the Harvard Business School case study
method, and offered it to AID staff.1 In 1981, the Agency published
a policy paper on Women in Development. At the end of the United
Nations Decade for Women (1975-1985) the Center for Development
Information and Evaluation (CDIE) carried out an agency wide, cross-
sector assessment of AID's Women in Development experience.2 The
new 1988 congressional mandate demands greater attention to
gender issues in development work, and provides new resources to
support expanded WID activities.

The AID approach to gender analysis is not limited to concern
with "equity" (e.g., addressing the question, "what is AID, or
development, doing for women?"). Since the very beginning, AID's
approach has also appreciated the significance of gender as a key
variable in determining the "efficiency" of projects and their
development successes. The assumption is that improved analysis of
gender will benefit the project's overall potential for reaching its
objectives and goals.

The major finding of the 1985 CDIE study was that:
"mainstream projects that ensure women's participation in
proportion to their roles and responsibilities within the
project's baseline situation are more likely to achieve their

1 See C. Overholt, M. Anderson, K. Cloud and J. Austin, Gender Roles in
Development Projects: A Casebook. W. Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press, 1985.
2 See footnote 1, page 2.







immediate purposes and their broader socioeconomic goals
than are projects that do not" (emphasis added). There are
several important aspects to this statement. 1) Mainstream projects
that successfully adapted to gender constraints were found to be
more effective in promoting and utilizing women's contribution to
socioeconomic development than were women-only projects or
separate women's components. 2) Successful gender analysis
assessed the relevance of specific gender differences to the baseline
situation and adapted project activities to integrate women in
proportion to their representation in the pool of eligible participants.
Making this direct linkage between gender variables and project
objectives and activities required sex-disaggregated data. 3)
Projects with high female participation were more likely to achieve
their short-term objectives and their broader development goals,
whether or not these goals and objectives specifically referred to
WID.

The study examined the following set of relationships:

Gender Project Women's Achieve Impact Long-
Analysis Adaptation Particip. Project on Women Term
(Baseline) Purposes Goals

Adequate gender analysis of the baseline situation (before the
project) was found to be essential, but not sufficient to have an
impact on project outcomes. The study found that gender analysis
must continue throughout the lifetime of projects so that they can
adapt to the gender constraints encountered in specific activities.
Even when there were no formal barriers to women's participation,
projects did not automatically adapt to gender constraints. In some
agricultural research and extension projects, it was necessary to
target women as a specific audience for project resources or activities
because they would be responsible for implementing the project
intervention. For mainstream direct-services delivery projects
especially, adaptation to gender constraints and differences
significantly enhanced women's participation, and also improved the
likelihood of achieving project goals and objectives.

The CDIE study found that projects in the agricultural sector
that delivered resources directly to women in accordance with their
productive and reproductive roles were more successful than those
that did not. "Understanding gender factors in agricultural
production is crucial to the successful transfer of technology into







agricultural systems" -- because of gender differences in access to
and control over productive resources; gender-linked labor
constraints; differential control over income; and different stakes and
incentives for women and men associated with increased agricultural
output. These findings are directly relevant to the AREP.

IV. Gender Analysis of AREP

A. Division of Labor; Access to and Control over Resources; Income
Patterns

Women play a major role in Eastern Caribbean agriculture,
especially in the small farm sector.1 Data from 1979 cited in the
CAEP Phase I Project Paper showed the following proportions of
women in the agricultural labor force: Antigua, 50%; Barbados, 40%;
Grenada, 20%; Montserrat, over 50%; St. Kitt/Nevis/Anguilla, 45%; St.
Lucia, 47%; St. Vincent, 30%. Women predominate in marketing,
especially local and inter-island. In some areas, male out-migration
leaves women behind as de facto household heads responsible for
the farm enterprise, causing the "feminization of farming."2

Research carried out in 1981 on St. Vincent and St. Lucia
provided more detailed information about the division of labor in
agriculture.3 On St. Lucia, women were the principal farmers in 43
percent of all small farm households. On St. Vincent, they were the
sole farmers in 24 percent and the principal farmer along with a
male partner in 40 percent. In addition to their role as food
producers, women in the Eastern Caribbean had major responsibility



1 Among the key sources of information on women's role in Eastern
Caribbean agriculture not cited elsewhere in this report are recent studies by
CAFRA on women and agriculture in Dominica and St. Vincent and the
Grenadines, as well as many publications by WAND. See especially, Planning
for Women in Rural Development: A Sourcebook for the Caribbean (Barbados:
Population Council/Women and Development Unit WAND), 1984.
2 Elsa M. Chaney, "Scenarios of Hunger in the Caribbean: Migration, Decline
of Smallholder Agriculture and the Feminization of Farming," Michigan State
University Working Papers on Women in International Development, #18,
March 1983.
3 See Barbara Knudson and Barbara A. Yates, "The Economic Role of Women in
Small Scale Agriculture in the Eastern Caribbean St. Lucia" (Barbados: WAND,
1981) and Barbara Knudson, "The Economic Role of Women in Small-Scale
Agriculture in the Eastern Caribbean: St. Lucia and St. Vincent Compared",
unpublished report, 1982.







for child support. In St. Lucia, 80 percent of all live births took place
out of wedlock. In such cases the mother is the main provider.

Separate income streams were the norm even in households
with a male present. While men typically controlled the income
earned from bananas and from cattle, for example, women often had
an independent income through their vegetable crops. Women were
solely responsible for paying for family food in 37 percent of the
households surveyed (food represented 40 percent of household
expenditures), support of children in 31 percent, transport in 22
percent, medical needs in 29 percent and farm supplies in 22
percent.

A clear gender division of labor in agriculture was noted.
Men's contribution to farming was primarily in land preparation,
planting, and pest control. Women participated most in weeding,
fertilizing, harvesting, storage and marketing. Men were likely to
control production of bananas and other export crops. Women
worked with vegetables and root crops, and in households with
animals they cared for livestock. On St. Lucia, women spent an
average of five hours a day in farm work and an additional 8-10
hours a day on housework, child care and marketing trips to town.
Women alone did the marketing in 37 percent of the households.
They were the sole decision makers on 12 percent of the farms in St.
Lucia and 23 percent in St. Vincent; they made decisions jointly with
the male partner in 50 percent of the farms on St. Lucia and 80
percent on St. Vincent.

However, women's access to agricultural services was found to
be disproportionate to .their heavy involvement in agriculture. In St.
Lucia, women received only eight percent of the agricultural loans
and less than one percent of the total amount dispersed. Only fifteen
percent of the women had received information from an extension
worker. Women's relatives were cited as their main source of
agricultural advice (51 percent). Another independent study of male
and female roles in farm planning decisions on three islands
(Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent) also found that family members
were highly significant sources of advice and opinions on farm
planning and on the adoption of innovation.1 The study


1 T.H. Henderson and P.I. Gomes, "Family Structure, Attitudes and Decision-
Making among Caribbean Peasant Farmers," Agricultural Administration 9:
257-265, 1982.







recommended that the whole family be more directly involved in the
extension education process. Also, the study suggested that
extension workers may neglect female farmers in their contacts.

B. Gender-Differentiated Stakes and Incentives1

The existing literature shows clearly that women in the Eastern
Caribbean are important in decision-making and/or labor
contributions for virtually all farm activities, yet their access to and
control over productive resources may be more constrained than
men's. This suggests that research and extension programs should be
responsive to the constraints faced by women farming without a
male partner.

Second, different stakes and incentives will often apply to men
and women even within the same household. Extension agents
sometimes commented, for example, that men farmers tend to focus
their attention and resources on one major export crop, such as
bananas, while women deal with multiple aspects of the farm
enterprise and were more in tune with the whole system. This
characterization would suggest women as an ideal target group for
crop diversification programs.

Specific technological or management interventions in
agriculture will have to address the realities of gender-differentiated
households where there may be different, even competing,
constraints and priorities. A good example is the shift of banana
packing from packing plant to field -- an extension intervention
directly related to RDO/C agricultural goals of improving banana
quality control. Apparently there has been no assessment of the
impact of that shift on women's labor, even though women usually
do the banana packing in both packing plant and field. What
happened to the women who lost their jobs in the packing plants?
How many are now working in the fields and under what conditions?
How has the increased demand for unpaid family labor to pack
bananas in the field affected women's other activities? Extension
agents commented that women did not like the tedious job of de-
flowering the bananas, and resented the new demand on their time


1 These hypothese about different stakes and incentives in Eastern Caribbean
agriculture were developed during the 1985 evaluation of CAEP carried out by
Marianne Schmink and Paula Goddard. They are based on in-depth interviews
with about two dozen extension agents and farmers on three islands.







for an activity that generated income not under their direct control.
Some were encouraging their husbands to move out of banana
production altogether. While these women could be considered
"participants" in improved banana production -- by virtue of the
labor they contributed -- they were not direct beneficiaries, and
therefore lacked the incentive to make the program work.

The banana-packing example shows the direct relevance of
applying gender analysis within the family or household unit in
order to understand the different stakes and incentives associated
with technological change. Gender analysis therefore goes beyond a
focus on the whole farm, or household unit. Unless intra-household
factors are well understood, the "farm family" approach may assume:
1) that household members share a homogeneous set of goals and
incentives (instead of different, sometimes completing priorities); 2)
that information is communicated perfectly among household
members (e.g. the "trickle across" of extension advice instead of
delivery directly to implementers); and 3) that women are primarily
involved in consumption and domestic work rather than farm
production. Gender analysis within specific household production
systems allows project adaptation, to permit more efficient targeting
of project resources to appropriate audiences.

The CDIE study found gender sensitivity to be especially
important in predicting the success of projects intended to have an
impact at the farmer level. The achievement of institution-building
objectives was less clearly linked to gender variables than were
farm-level socioeconomic goals. Gender sensitivity will therefore be
especially important as the RDO/C agricultural sector strategy shifts
its emphasis from building institutional strengths in research and
extension, to changes in farm-level agricultural systems. The AREP
will be more likely to achieve project objectives, and improve the
lives of both women and men farmers, if gender sensitivity is built
into the overall project design.

C. Problems Related to Gender and AREP1

1. Farm family vs. gender analysis


1 Much of the following analysis of problems draws from the 1985 CAEP study
by Marianne Schmink and Paula Goddard; see Vol. II of Women and
Development: A.I.D.'s Experience, 1973-1985 (Washington: AID, CDIE),
forthcoming 1989.







Eastern Caribbean agricultural research (CARDI) and extension
institutions (CAEP and UWI Extension) use the farm family as the
unit of analysis of the farming system. While this approach is
preferable to a focus only on the male farmer, it still may not target
resources efficiently, for the reasons discussed above. In CAEP Phase
II (1982), the farm family focus replaced specific attention to women
and a more extensive gender analysis that had characterized Phase I.
Under the extension of Phase II, the project has shifted to a "farm
management" focus that does not disaggregate the household by
gender. CARDI also deals primarily with the whole
(undifferentiated) family, but had begun to refine its farming
systems methodology to include an understanding of intra-household
dynamics (under the leadership of a staff person who has now left
CARDI).i

2. Linkage of WID activities to project goals
During its institution-building phase, CAEP sponsored a variety
of special WID activities, including training workshops sponsored by
WAND that helped to increase sensitivity to the realities of women's
lives and rural communities. There was also some attention to
women's representation in the extension service process. However,
the increased awareness of women's roles was not sufficiently linked
to the project's overall goals in agricultural production. As a result,
for example, the farm management data collection instruments now
being used do not disaggregate farm systems (labor, income, access
and control over resources) by gender. In CARDI, economist
Vasantha Chase carried out some special studies of women's
agricultural roles and worked informally with her staff colleagues to
increase their understanding of gender issues. However, her
expertise was not sufficiently institutionalized at CARDI and her
departure about a yeaf ago has left a vacuum. Economist Charles
Douglas (based in Antigua) is working on development of
quantitative methods for selecting priority farming systems, and
participating farmers. He has incorporated a number of variables
measuring gender:.differences into his models. This is an example of
a "WID" activity directly related to CARDI project goals.

3. WID monitoring and evaluation


1 See Vasantha Chase, "Farming Systems Research in the Eastern Caribbean:
An Attempt at Analyzing Intra-Houschold Dynamics," pp. 171-182 in S. Poats,
M. Schmink and A. Spring (eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research
and Extension (Boulder: Westview), 1988.








The 1985 CAEP study found the agricultural extension project
to be gender sensitive in many ways that were not reflected in
project reports and evaluations. On the other hand, there was little
data on project participation by gender. The monitoring and
evaluation system was not designed to provide good information
about the gender-differentiated impact of the project. Evaluations
did not analyze gender as a specific variable in project outcomes.
The first major evaluation (in 1984) found little progress in
increasing women's representation in the extension staff. In
assessing farmer-level impact, the evaluators apparently assumed
women were primarily involved with nutrition and backyard
gardening within the farm system. CARDI, likewise, lacks any
specific reporting on WID activities or sex-disaggregated data on
project activities. Research and extension staff must probably be
convinced of the relevance of gender to their work before they will
systematically collect such information.

4. Staff WID expertise

Most of the CAEP/UWI Extension staff have a high level of
awareness and understanding of gender issues and their relevance to
agricultural research and extension activities. They also have good
linkages with local WID groups and regularly collaborate with WAND,
CAFRA, and UWI/WID. The CARDI staff, on the other hand, has lost
its WID expert with the departure of Vasantha Chase. The social
science input into CARDI's programs is very weak. Nor does CARDI
have strong ties to local WID groups. In general, staff at UWI, CARDI
and at the RDO/C office could benefit from more exposure to the
concepts and applications of gender analysis, in order to move
beyond sensitivity to' adaptation of projects and programs.

V. Recommendations

A. Recommendations for RDO/C

1. Mission staff should participate in the UNDP WID training
workshop on gender analysis, using the Harvard case study method
(scheduled for 30-31 January, 1989, Barbados)
2. Form a cross-sectoral WID committee to develop the RDO/C
WID strategy






3. Consult with the International Center for Research on
Women (ICRW) on RDO/C WID strategy during requested visit in
February
4. Develop stronger linkages with local WID experts: WAND,
CAFRA, and UWI/WID. All three are regional institutions with direct
experience in development work in agriculture. WAND's strengths
are in facilitation of community participation and in training. CAFRA
is involved in participatory research and community development.
UWI/WID would like to develop a program of research on women in
Caribbean agriculture that could provide important information for
the AREP and other RDO/C projects.
5. Identify and document more systematically the existing
gender-sensitive programs and projects in RDO/C's portfolio. This
will provide a point of departure for the office's WID strategy, and
improve the prospects for seeking matching WID funds from
AID/Washington and other sources.
6. Develop an expanded WID strategy funded in part through
specific project funds targeted to women participants and in part
through special RDO/C allocations, to be matched by WID funds from
AID/Washington and other outside sources.
7. Develop a set of key WID resource materials. This should
include the sources of information on women in Caribbean
agriculture cited in this report, and key sources on the AID approach
to gender analysis.1

B. Recommendations for AREP

1. Design document

a. Expand the .gender analysis in the project paper (e.g., to
include more than the one-paragraph "boilerplate" on p. 20 of the
PID). Summarize more of the specific aspects of the division of labor,
access and control over resources, and income patterns within the
household, as outlined above and reported in more detail in other
sources of information.2 The analysis should focus on women's role

1 For example, the A.I.D. Policy Paper on Women in Development; C. Overholt,
M. Anderson, K. Cloud and J. Austin, Gender Roles in Development Projects: A
Casebook. W. Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press, 1985; the CDIE study; ICRW's
collection of working papers; S. Poats, M. Schmink and A. Spring (eds.), Gender
Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (Boulder: Westview), 1988.
2 Potential sources of information for this expanded analysis include: CAEP
Phase I Project Paper, pp. 90-96 and annex; Schmink/Goddard reports on CAEP;
WAND/MUCIA study on St. Vincent and St. Lucia (see footnote 3, p. 5; V. Chase







not only in farm decision-making but also in farming. Where
possible, the project paper should differentiate the likely pools of
eligible participants according to their gender, indicating the need to
target project resources to specific audiences. (For example, the
discussion of priority agricultural opportunities on p. 6 of the PID
should specify the predominance of women hucksters as traders and
mention women's importance in vegetable production).

b. Describe the ways CAEP and CARDI have already adapted to
gender considerations.1 This includes reporting on WID activities
peripheral to mainstream project activities as well as the ways
gender analysis has changed the implementation of research and
extension activities, especially in the more recent farming systems
work. For example, did CARDI include women farmers among their
on-farm trial participants? If so, did gender turn out to be a
significant variable in defining their research priorities?

c. Describe mechanisms for incorporating gender analysis into
project implementation to allow for new gender-sensitive project
adaptations under AREP. Specific examples from the PID include: 1)
p. 10: specify gender as a key variable in farming systems research
and extension, that will be addressed in the sondeo and in work
plans. State that WID/social science expertise will be incorporated
into the project for this purpose. 2) p. 10: specify the need for
attention to gender differences within the farm enterprise, as part of
the farm/home management approach. The data-keeping
instruments used by researchers and extension agents should
disaggregate labor demands, decision-making, income streams, and
resource use by gender. 3) Pp. 11-12: among linkages with the
private sector, specify. local WID experts, especially for the
Technology Adaptatioi and Transfer Program. 4) p. 15: Specify
training in gender analysis. 5) p. 16: specify WID consultancies.

2. Institutional alternatives



1988 (see footnote 1, p.9) and other studies by V. Chase; papers from CARDI
seminar on women in agriculture in the Caribbean held in July of 1987; papers
by C. Douglas of CARDI; studies being completed by CAFRA on women and
agriculture in St. Vincent and Dominica.
1 Potential sources of information include: CAEP Phase I Project Paper;
Schmink and Goddard reports on CAEP; papers from CARDI seminar on women
in agriculture; Vasantha Chase papers and case study; Charles Douglas papers;
study of CARDI and CAEP carried out by Rhoda Reddock (UWI/WID) for UNIFEM.







a. Hire (or designate from existing staff) an AREP WID
coordinator to work with UWI, CARDI and WID groups. One good
candidate would be Anne Rajak of the UWI Extension staff in
Trinidad and the UWI/WID group.

b. Strengthen CARDI's WID/social science staff expertise to fill
the vacuum left by Vasantha Chase's departure. Consider allocating a
staff position to rural sociology or anthropology, with a specific WID
focus.

c. Form a WID advisory committee for AREP with
representatives of CARDI; UWI Extension; UWI/WID; WAND; CAFRA;
RDO/C.

d. Strengthen linkages with regional and U.S.-based WID
experts. Take advantage of planned activities like the February
CAFRA seminar (to be attended by AREP staff) and UWI/WID
seminars (on social science in April; on agriculture in September,
1989). Develop joint training, monitoring, and research activities
with WID groups (see below).

3. Project adaptation

a. Sponsor a training session for CARDI, UWI Extension and
WID groups to undertake jointly, using the case studies method
applied to gender analysis of farming systems. The training course
could be delivered by Tropical Resources and Development (TR&D),
Gainesville, Florida; by the Harvard-based group; by the University
of Florida; by others recommended by the ICRW. TR&D has the most
experience with the use of gender-sensitive farming systems case
studies, one of which' was developed by Vasantha Chase based on
CARDI's work in St. Lucia. Local trainers could include V. Chase and
Peggy Antrobus, or others from WAND with training experience.
WID experts involved in the course would learn about the farming
systems approach. to agriculture, and agricultural experts would
learn about gender analysis.

The format of the course might be a two-day class session with
30-40 participants (and 3-4 trainers), followed by a two-day
training-of-trainers session with 10-15 participants. This would
allow the training experience to filter through the project.
Participants could use existing project data to analyze in the course.
The output of the course would be a refined AREP gender strategy.







The course should be planned by a committee including
representatives of the project institutions, WID groups, and U.S.-
based trainers. Such a course would cost roughly $35-50,000,
including support for a prior planning meeting in the region. The
training activity would provide a point of departure for a much
broader AREP gender strategy. If it could be financed by RDO/C
funds, it could serve to justify a request for matching WID funds
from AID/Washington to support an expanded set of activities.
Ideally, the training course would be scheduled prior to the UWI
Extension Field Workshop planned for August 6-19, 1989 in
Trinidad.

b. Experiment with gender-sensitive delivery mechanisms for
agricultural technology (e.g., gender-specific information channels;
women's organizations; changes in timing, duration or location of
extension meetings; training for frontline agents in gender analysis).
(See CAEP Phase I Project Paper for more discussion of these
suggestions).

c. Monitor and evaluate the gender aspects of project activities.
1) Collect disaggregated data on participants, beneficiaries and pools
of "eligibles." This information -- now required by AID/Washington
and by Congress -- is necessary but not sufficient to assess gender
aspects of the project. 2) Specify target audiences by gender in
project work plans, when appropriate 3) Design an evaluation
strategy to measure both the impact of gender on project outcomes,
and the impact of the project on women. It will be impossible to
show project success in relation to gender without explicit monitoring
and evaluation activities.

d. Consolidate and expand research on gender variables in
relation to AREP. 1) Expand the gender analysis of existing project
data bases: disaggregate by gender, and test relationships of gender
variables to key;.project objectives. There is a wealth of valuable
information that has yet to be digested and fed into research and
extension institutions' work. 2) Encourage or commission WID
experts to carry out supplementary studies: e.g., analysis of gender
in different farming systems. The UWI/WID group would seem to be
particularly well-suited to a collaborative, and mutually-beneficial,
research program. The WID group coordinator for the Trinidad
campus is a plant scientist and there are several other women from
the WID group on the UWI agricultural staff.








4. Pilot Community Effort


As a side effort, it would be ideal to select one or more
community sites in which to carry out an integrated community
development effort involving multidisciplinary teams from CARDI,
CARDATS, UWI Extension, WAND and CAFRA. This activity could be
coordinated by the newly-created Caribbean Network for Integrated
Rural Development (CNIRD). AREP could provide the agricultural
technical assistance component. A pilot project with a gender focus
would permit the testing of collaborative, multidisciplinary research
and extension approaches.

V. Conclusions

The report presents specific recommendations for AREP project
design, institutional framework, and implementation. The
framework of gender analysis as developed by AID provides the
rationale for implementing these recommendations, in order to
improve women's participation in the project and to enhance the
likelihood that the AREP will achieve its development goals and its
immediate purpose (to strengthen institutional capability to deliver
farm level agricultural technology).

Recommended actions in staffing, training, meetings,
monitoring, research, and pilot community efforts all cost money. A
coherent WID strategy could be developed within AREP using some
combination of 1) earmarked project funds (e.g. for a staff position,
training course, consultant, or workshop); 2) RDO/C funds (e.g. for
consultants, a training course, or commissioned research); 3) outside
funding sources (e.g., foundation support for UWI/WID research or
for pilot projects); 4) matching WID funds from AID/Washington. If
attention to gender improves the likelihood of success in
development efforts, then additional resources will be well spent.
They will help RDO/C to more systematically integrate WID concerns
into the regional portfolio.








Persons interviewed


RDO/C
Timothy Miller
Howard Batson
Ralph Cummings
Michael Lofstrom

CARD
Calixte George
John Hammerton
Charles Douglass

CAEP/UWI Extension
P.I. Gomes
Dunston Campbell
Anne Rajak

WAND
Peggy Antrobus
Patricia Rodney

UWI/WID
Grace Sirju-Charran
Rhoda Reddock

CAFRA
Rawwida Baksh-Soodeen
Tina Johnson


Appendix:




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs