Search

Session ID 4290, Paper# 18737

Male outmigration, the globalization of agri-food systems, conflict, and pandemic human disease have all been linked to changes in rural economies, changes in women’s roles in the agricultural sector, and consequently to assertions that agriculture is “feminizing.” This review assesses the global evidence surrounding the feminization of agriculture. First, it proposes a number of indicators to track the feminization of agriculture, noting that although limited data exist for some of the indicators, efforts should be expanded to collect data for all of them to provide better diagnostics of women’s work in agriculture and their welfare. Next, it critically examines the factors that may lead to the feminization of agriculture and evaluates the empirical evidence on each factor worldwide. The review concludes by identifying policy imperatives based on the evidence on women’s roles in agriculture in the context of rural transformation

Over the last several decades, participation in producer organizations has become a key principle of development, enabling people’s empowerment, inclusiveness, and facilitating democracy. Producer organizations have become crucial actors to provide services to the rural poor, and women’s participation and leadership in producer organizations has become a focus of rural and agricultural development efforts. This review paper aims to document the factors that hinder women’s participation in producer organizations. The review identifies several factors as major barriers for women’s participation, including: socio-cultural norms; women’s double burden and triple roles; women’s status, age and previous membership in organizations; access to assets and resources; educational level; organizations’ rules of entry, and; legal and policy environment. The paper also provides a review of lessons and good practice that can be applied by Agricultural Research for Development institutions. The review identified strategies for strengthening women’s participation in producer organizations at the individual/household, community/producer organization, and policy level. The review found that at the individual/household level, strategies to improve individual capabilities and intra-household relations were crucial for promoting women’s participation and leadership in producer organizations. Similarly, at the producer organizational level strategies to ensure that the structures and governance mechanisms are more gender sensitive, and promote women’s inclusion, are crucial. Equally important are policies for promoting gender-sensitive producer organizations and specific measures geared at promoting women’s active participation in producers’ organizations.

Social capital is an important characteristic of a community and is one of the components of the asset pentagon of the sustainable livelihood framework. The study aimed at assessing the levels and dimensions of social capital and how social capital influences other livelihood capitals. A Cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 208 households was conducted in Masindi and Hoima Districts in Uganda to assess the current livelihood conditions and strategies for improving rural livelihoods. An Index of social capital was generated using density of group membership and three levels of social capital where generated i.e. high, medium and low. Two dimensions of social capital (bonding and bridging) were considered. Results showed that households with high and medium social capital had enhanced skills to solve problems, do research and bargain with middle men. Social capital empowered more women to participate in decision making, fostered asset base creation and use of natural resource management technologies. There was a significant difference between level of social capital and participation in collective farming. Households with high social capital rated highly the community level of trust, reciprocity, and women’s confidence. However, there was no significant effect of social capital on household income. In conclusion, there was a positive relationship between level and dimension of social capital and access to livelihood assets implying that strengthening social capital is a powerful way to improve communities and requires consistent and effective approaches to build and reinforce the social and human capital.

The intense debate over agricultural biotechnology is at once fascinating, confusing and disappointing. It is complicated by issues of ethical, moral, socio-economic, political, philosophical and scientific import. Its vocal champions exaggerate their claims of biotechnology as saviour of the poor and hungry, while, equally loudly, its opponents declare it as the doomsday devil of agriculture. Sandwiched between these two camps is the rest of the public, either absorbed or indifferent. Biotechnology issues specific to the African public must include crop and animal productivity, food security, alleviation of poverty and gender equity, and must exclude political considerations. Food and its availability are basic human rights issues—for people without food, everything else is insignificant. Although we should discuss and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the agricultural biotechnology debate into food aid for Africa where millions are faced with life-or-death situations is irresponsible. Agricultural biotechnology promises the impoverished African a means to improve food security and reduce pressures on the environment, provided the perceived risks associated with the technology are addressed. This paper attempts to harmonize the debate, and to examine the potential benefits and risks that agricultural biotechnology brings to African farmers. Key words : Agriculture, biotechnology, biotechnology debate, biotechnology and Africa, biotechnology issues, food security, poverty alleviation. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol.2(11) 2003: 394-416

International audience; A study was launched in 2005 to systematize and compare a series of ten contrasting past and on-going experiences in which research has been conducted with local actors (such as farmers and farmers' organizations, but also extension services, governments, private sector, etc.). The main objectives of this study are (i) to draw lessons in terms of research approaches, modalities, methods, tools, and results and (ii) to propose guidelines to improve the design and conduct of research projects focusing on the conception of innovations in partnership among multiple stakeholders. Cross-analysis of the case studies was pursued in three directions: (1) the balance reached between problem resolution, knowledge generation and empowerment of local actors, (2) the formalization of partnerships and (3) the modalities adopted for steering activities and for partnership governance. Assessing the distance between actual project practices followed in each experience, and what could be called an "ideal" action-research process, rigorously based on established A-R concepts, lies at the heart of this analysis. Preliminary results confirm that each experience is the result of an encounter among specific individuals, who purposefully broke away from paradigms reigning locally or institutionally for effecting change. It also shows that the research and innovation process is not a linear process with different well planned phases and cycles, but results from how projects deal with tensions between stakeholders and how they generate the adjustments necessary to achieve eventual success in problem-solving and generate knowledge. The diverse set-ups co-constructed among stakeholders are not only means to achieve common objectives, but they also embody high-stake challenges throughout the project life. To keep the spirit of the partnership, it may be useful to formalize mutual commitments: this helps to avoid the disruptive consequences of the corresponding power struggles, and eventually deliver useful outputs. Effective involvement of farmers' organizations in partnership with research is both critical yet difficult to achieve, because of the time needed to build trust, elaborate a common language and achieve needed commitments. It also requires professionals to develop new skills such as mediators. Finally, even projects that do not follow strictly the established principles of action research seem to achieve noteworthy results. These latter vary however greatly from one project to another in terms of knowledge production, learning process, and problem solving.