RECOMMENDED CITATION

FAO. 2018. Developing gender-sensitive value chains – Guidelines for practitioners. Rome

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-130516-4
E-ISBN 978-92-5-132266-6 (MOBI)

© FAO, 2018

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.

Cover photos (from top)

Southern Philippines climbs out of war: From arms to farms with FAO-Japan help. Mindanao, Philippines.

© FAO/Bahag

Farming couple ploughing with two oxen at the village of Guri i Bardhe. Albania.

© FAO/C. Grace

Project: reducing vulnerability and increasing adaptive capacity to respond to impacts of climate change and variability for sustainable livelihoods in agriculture sector, Nepal.

© Chris Steele-Perkins/Magnum Photos

A man and woman pouring corn into an FAO-sponsored motorized mill during a demonstration in the village. Kitungulu, Democratic Republic of Congo.

© FAO/Olivier Asselin

GCP/INT/240/ITA Youth mobility, food security and rural poverty reduction: Fostering rural diversification through enhanced youth employment and better labour mobility. Tunisia.

© Nikos Economopoulos/Magnum Phot

Contents

Acknowledgements

Acronyms and abbreviations

Introduction

Part 1
Gender-sensitive analysis of the value chain

1 » Assessing the broader context

2 » Selecting a value chain based on its potential to promote gender equality

3 » Gender-sensitive value chain mapping

4 » Analysis of gender-based constraints

Part 2
Actions for addressing GBCs in value chain interventions

1 » Limited access to information, knowledge and training

2 » Unequal participation and decision-making power

3 » Limited access to financial services

4 » Limited access and adoption of inputs and technology

5 » Work burden and time poverty

References

FIGURES

Figure 1. The FAO Gender-Sensitive Value Chain Framework

Figure 2. Gender-sensitive mapping: product flow and value chain actors

Figure 3. Gender-sensitive mapping: support services along the chain

Figure 4. Gender-sensitive mapping of the dairy value chain in East Shewa (Ethiopia)

Figure 5. Examples of GBCs at different levels of the GSVC Framework

Figure 6. GBCs and their impact along the value chain

Figure 7. Elements of bargaining power

TABLES

Table 1. Guiding questions to assess the value chain potential to advance women’s empowerment

Table 2. Social criteria to be considered in value chain selection

Table 3. Constraints identified along the dairy value chain in Kenya, by gender

Table 4. Analysis of GBCs in the dairy value chain in Oromia, Ethiopia

Table 5. Entry points to enhance the gender-sensitivity of rural advisory services

Table 6. Enhancing the gender-sensitivity of business development services: suiTable strategies and entry points

Table 7. GBCs and counter-strategies for producer organizations

Table 8. Summary of strategies for strengthening women’s participation in producer organizations

Table 9. Innovative financial services/products for rural women and women-owned MSMEs in agrifood value chains

Table 10. List of technologies, services and practices with a labour-saving potential for women

Acknowledgements

Valentina Franchi is the lead author of this publication, which was developed in close collaboration with Alejandra Safa, under the technical supervision of Regina Laub (FAO Social Policies and Rural Institutions Division – ESP). Valuable inputs were provided by Anna Lentink, Angelica Senders (Fair & Sustainable Consulting and the AgriProFocus Network) and Sofie Isenberg (ESP, responsible for drafting Part II, Section 2, ‘Unequal participation and decision-making’).

Sincere appreciation is extended to colleagues who provided comments and reviewed different drafts of this publication: Marcello Vicovaro (Nutrition and Food Systems Division – ESN), Florence Tartanac (ESN), Cristina Scarpocchi (ESN), Valentina Sommacal (ESP), Flavia Grassi (ESP), Hajnalka Petrics (ESP), Nozomi Ide (ESP), Idil Yalman (ESP) and Massimo Pera (ESA).

Thanks also need to be extended to Gordon Ramsay for the editing and Andrea Wöhr for the layout and design of the publication.

Acronyms and abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

AIDOS Italian Association of Women for Development

BDS business development services

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFS Farmer Field School

FI financial institution

GBC gender-based constraint

GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation

GSVC Gender-sensitive value chain

ICT information and communication technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFC International Finance Corporation

ILO International Labour Organization

MFI microfinance institution

MSME Micro, small- and medium-sized enterprise

NGO non-governmental organization

RAS rural advisory services

ROSCA Rotating Savings and Credit Association

SACCO Saving and Credit Cooperative

SEWA Self-Employed Women’s Association

Introduction

IMPLEMENTING THE FAO GENDER-SENSITIVE VALUE CHAIN FRAMEWORK

What efforts need to be made to effectively mainstream gender in agrifood value chain projects and programmes? When can a value chain intervention be considered ‘gender-sensitive’? What actions can be implemented to address gender inequalities along the chain?

These guidelines aim to respond to these questions and support practitioners in translating the Gender-Sensitive Value Chain Framework, developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) into action (FAO, 2016a). Building on FAO’s comparative advantage on gender in agriculture and food security, these guidelines are primarily intended to assist practitioners in designing and implementing interventions that provide women and men with equal opportunities to benefit from agrifood value chain development. They offer practical tools and examples of successful approaches to foster a more systematic integration of gender equality dimensions in value chain interventions in the agricultural sector and enhance the social impact of these interventions.

The guidelines are targeted to practitioners in a wide range of organizations and institutions, including national governments, international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutes and the private sector, in particular:

» value chain practitioners who want to ensure that their interventions are inclusive and socially sustainable, and seek support on how best to address gender issues in their work on agrifood value chains;

» gender experts who are tasked with supporting the integration of gender equality and women’s empowerment objectives in agrifood value chain interventions.

The publication consists of two main sections:

» Part 1: Gender-sensitive analysis of the value chain presents tools and resources to assess and select value chains from a gender perspective, and guides practitioners in the identification of the gender-based constraints (GBCs) that undermine both the performance of the chain and women’s opportunities for economic empowerment.

» Part 2: Actions for addressing GBCs in value chain interventions considers the key constraints that practitioners are likely to encounter when analysing agrifood value chains from a gender perspective, and explores possible solutions to address them as an integral part of the value chain upgrading strategy.

Both Part I and Part II provide a selection of tools, approaches and resources developed by FAO and other partners working on gender, agriculture and value chain development. Their selection, and in some cases, adaptation, is based on recent FAO experience in the field. Case studies are presented throughout the guidelines to illustrate, with concrete examples, the ways the tools were applied and the interventions that were implemented in different contexts to address specific GBCs. A list of additional resources is provided at the end of each section to complement the main tools and approaches described in this publication.

The FAO Gender-Sensitive Value Chain (GSVC) approach, introduced in the 2016 publication Developing gender-sensitive value chains: a guiding framework, emphasizes the need to assess gender-based constraints (GBCs) as an integral part of the value chain analysis (FAO, 2016a). These specific constraints, resulting from gender-based discrimination, play a key role in undermining women’s productive and entrepreneurial potential. As such, they not only limit women’s opportunities to participate in and benefit from value chains, but also undermine the overall performance of the chain by generating distortions in the labour market, losses and inefficiencies. Detecting GBCs during the analysis of the value chain is therefore essential to have a complete understanding of the underlying causes of its underperformance and identify upgrading strategies that can be both economically and socially sustainable.

The following sections will guide the reader through various steps and levels of gender-sensitive analysis, from the assessment of the broader context to the specific investigation of GBCs in different nodes of the value chain. At each step, the guidelines will present practical tools, guiding questions and additional resources to explore the topic in greater detail.

1 » Assessing the broader context

In every country, socio-cultural norms shape expectations about women’s and men’s appropriate roles and responsibilities. These norms influence the division of labour within the household, in value chains, and in the labour market in general. Gender relations determine access to assets and resources, participation and decision-making power, all of which have a direct impact on the performance and governance of the chain. Assessing the broader context from a gender perspective before engaging in the analysis of a specific value chain is helpful to understand what the ‘playing field’ is for both women and men within the economy and society. It serves to identify the areas in which gender discrimination is more pronounced (e.g. in relation to education, financial inclusion, or ownership of agricultural assets) and anticipate the challenges and the opportunities that women are likely to face in agrifood value chains. Retrieving and analysing sex-disaggregated data and gender-sensitive information can therefore be a first key step for practitioners embarking in a gender-sensitive analysis of the value chain (Box 1).

An analysis of the broader context from a gender perspective also entails looking at the policy and institutional environment to assess to what extent it is equally ‘enabling’ for women and men. Understanding whether there are incentives or, on the contrary, barriers to gender equality and women’s empowerment in national policies, strategies and legal frameworks is critical to design an effective gender-sensitive value chain intervention. As outlined by the GSVC Framework, it is important to identify GBCs in the ‘enabling environment’ and analyse their impact on the core and extended value chain, as well as on the individual and household level.

Institutions and legal frameworks tend to reflect and consolidate common perceptions about women’s and men’s appropriate roles and behaviours. For instance, inheritance and ownership laws are clear examples of the codification of beliefs about who has the right to property in a given society. Discriminatory laws and regulations still exist in many countries. According to a 2016 study carried out by the World Bank, 155 out of 173 economies assessed have at least one discriminatory law impeding women’s equal economic opportunities (World Bank, 2016). Even when not openly discriminatory, policies and strategies in the agriculture sector often fail to take gender concerns adequately into consideration, which risks perpetuating, or even exacerbating, inequalities and discrimination. At the country level, there is often a disconnect between gender and agricultural policies. This is mainly due to a lack of collaboration among actors and institutions working in these two policy domains, and a limited awareness of technical staff about the implications of gender inequalities on rural and agriculture development (FAO, 2017a).

TOOLS FOR ASSESSING THE BROADER CONTEXT

Guiding questions for a gender-sensitive assessment of the policy and institutional environment

Key guiding questions for an assessment of the national policy and institutional environment from a gender perspective include:

» Is the national policy framework aligned to international commitments on gender equality? For example, has the country ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Box 2)? What is the country’s commitment in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and in particular to SDG 5 on gender equality?

» Has the country endorsed a gender policy or strategy? What are its main priorities or objectives? Are specific groups of women (e.g. rural women, women-headed households) explicitly targeted?

» Does the policy or strategy refer to agriculture, food security, or to the sector targeted by the value chain intervention (e.g. fisheries, livestock, dairy)?

» How are gender concerns reflected in national policies or strategies related to value chain development or specific technical sectors (e.g. livestock, fisheries, forestry, land tenure, cooperatives, extension, rural finance)? Are specific measures to promote women’s empowerment and equal opportunities envisaged in the policies’ implementation plans?

» Is there a ministry responsible for the promotion of gender equality or women’s empowerment? Are there institutional mechanisms in place to support the integration of gender equality concerns in national policy and planning processes (e.g. gender focal points or units within ministries)? Do they have enough visibility and resources (financial and human) to fulfil their mandate?

» Is there any mechanism in place to facilitate coordination and collaboration among actors responsible for gender equality and agricultural development? Is there a platform to facilitate dialogue with civil society organizations or producer organizations that are knowledgeable or active in women’s rights and economic empowerment?

A rapid assessment of the national policy landscape is also essential to identify institutions and stakeholders working on gender equality and women’s empowerment at the country level (e.g. ministries of women’s affairs, gender units in relevant ministries, civil society organizations active on gender equality and women’s rights). These actors can play an important role in providing and validating information because they are knowledgeable about the prevailing GBCs at the local level. Practitioners might therefore consider consulting and engaging with these actors at different steps of the value chain analysis. They can also be engaged as partners for policy-related interventions, such as advocacy for a more systematic integration of gender equality dimensions into a new policy or strategy and institutional capacity development to sensitize decision-makers on the implications of gender inequalities in their technical work.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON THE GENDER-SENSITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

» FAO. 2016b. The Gender in Agricultural Policies Analysis Tool (GAPo). Rome.

» FAO. 2017a. Strengthening sector policies for better food security and nutrition results: Gender equality. Policy Guidance Note 6. Rome.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

2 » Selecting a value chain based on its potential to promote gender equality

Selecting the value chain or sector to target (e.g. dairy, fisheries or horticulture) may be the first fundamental choice that practitioners have to make when planning their intervention. In most cases, the selection is predetermined by the government as part of a national strategy targeting a specific sector or area. When this is not the case, project formulators should carry out a preliminary feasibility and sustainability assessment to select the value chain that has strong potential to contribute to achieving the overall objectives of the foreseen interventions (e.g. improved food security and nutrition, poverty alleviation, and development of agri-business and entrepreneurship).

The bottom line for value chain selection is clearly the economic dimension, particularly the potential for market growth or creation, value addition and employment generation. However, when the ultimate goal is to develop agrifood chains that are not only efficient, but also inclusive and socially sustainable, it is fundamental that the selection be based on an integrated set of criteria that combines economic, environmental and social concerns.

Standard approaches for value chain selection seldom explicitly consider gender equality. However, examining the potential of a value chain to benefit both women and men is important, especially when designing interventions that aim to combine gender equality and value chain development objectives. It is possible to work on every value chain using a gender-sensitive approach (i.e. acknowledging the different roles women and men play and avoiding the reinforcement of existing existing inequalities). However, a selection process that is based on gender criteria helps to identify the sectors or commodities that, in a specific context, offer the highest potential for benefitting women and advancing their economic empowerment, while also promoting poverty reduction, food security and nutrition goals.

TOOLS FOR GENDER-SENSITIVE VALUE CHAIN SELECTION

Checklist to assess value chain potential to advance women’s empowerment and gender equality

(Royal Tropical Institute, Agri-ProFocus and International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, 2012)

This checklist, included in the publication Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural value chain development, helps to assess the potential of a value chain to contribute, in synergistic manner, to reaching objectives related to both economic growth and women’s empowerment.

» criteria for economic growth potential (as generally used in value chain selection processes);

» criteria for increased women’s empowerment and gender equality potential; and

» pragmatic/feasibility criteria (e.g. availability of funds, donor/government preference for a chain).

Examples of guiding questions to assess the potential of the value chain to advance gender equality and women’s economic empowerment are presented in Table 1. They are not meant to be exhaustive and can be complemented by other criteria that stakeholders and counterparts find relevant in a specific context or in relation to a specific value chain. The tool is most effective when used in participatory settings and when engaging with stakeholders and actors who are involved in and informed about the value chains under assessment.

As the exercise combines different sets of criteria, it may reveal a trade-off between the economic growth and women’s empowerment potential of the value chain. For example, focusing on a typical ‘women’s product’ (e.g. shea butter, small livestock, cassava) might offer limited opportunities for increasing margins, but it can provide strategic entry points for enhancing women’s participation along the chain by professionalizing their traditional roles and improving their interaction with suppliers and service providers.

The final selection of the value chain to be targeted will depend on the overall objective of the intervention (poverty reduction, job creation, food security). However, the findings of a gender-sensitive selection process help to anticipate the impact that an intervention in a specific sector or commodity is likely to have on both men and women. This will support the design of the most effective and socially sustainable upgrading strategy.

Checklist for value chain selection including social criteria

(Schneemann and Vredeveld, 2015)

The Guidelines for value chain selection, developed by Fair and Sustainable Advisory Services consultants Schneemann and Vredeveld, in collaboration with the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), advocate for a holistic approach to value chain selection. The approach integrates economic, environmental, social and institutional dimensions. The tools provided in the guidelines offer a comprehensive set of criteria against which value chains can be weighed and compared. The criteria are complemented by indicators, guiding questions and useful sources of data. While it would be preferable to compare sectors and value chains based on hard data and statistics, it is important to remember that the selection is not a mathematical exercise. For this reason, the guidelines take a qualitative approach. Comparisons are mostly based on qualitative information, as quantitative data on social dimensions on value chains are often lacking and costly to collect.

The criteria and questions proposed by the GIZ–ILO guidelines in relation to the social dimension of value chains (presented in Table 2) are not exclusive, but they are very pertinent for screening and selecting value chains from a gender perspective. The guiding questions can be used to discuss the characteristics and potential of value chains under comparison with stakeholders and key informants. If a quantitative approach is preferred, the table is also accompanied by a scoring matrix (in Excel format), which can be used to weigh and score the value chains against each set of criteria. Instructions for weighing and scoring are included in the original guidelines (available at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_416392.pdf).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON GENDER-SENSITIVE VALUE CHAIN SELECTION

» Agri-ProFocus. 2014. Gender in value chains toolkit.

» Riisgaard, L., Escobar Fibla, A. M. & Ponte, S. 2010. Evaluation study. Gender and value chain development. Copenhagen, DANIDA.

» Sahan, E. & Fischer-Mackey, J. 2011. Making markets empower the poor. Programme perspectives on using markets to empower women and men living in poverty. Oxfam Discussion Paper. Oxfam.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

3 » Gender-sensitive value chain mapping

Value chain mapping follows a specific product through the various steps of the chain, from production to consumption. The exercise maps all actors involved in the process, their interactions and power relations. It identifies the steps in which value is added to the product before it reaches the market. Conducting such a mapping exercise from a gender perspective provides insights on the gender division of labour along the chain. It can reveal how both women and men participate in each node of the chain, what specific tasks they perform, and how they interact with other actors.

One of the main advantages of this approach is that it helps to make women’s work visible. Women perform many activities in agrifood value chains. However, their contribution often remains invisible when traditional tools and approaches for value chain analysis are applied because these tools and approaches fail to capture the unpaid work they provide as family labourers or partners in family business. Women’s prevalence in the informal economy also helps to explain the invisibility of their work in official statistics and reports. Stereotypes about the division of labour between men and women at the household level also lead to an underestimation of women’s contribution to productive activities in terms of time and labour.

Increasing the visibility of women’s productive role, especially in the case of smallholders, home-based and small-scale producers or entrepreneurs, is fundamental for ensuring this role is recognized and valued, and that women are considered legitimate value chain actors and gain access to the resources and services they need to become more efficient and competitive. This involves going beyond the core and extended value chain to include the individual and household level in the analysis, as stressed by the GSVC Framework (FAO, 2016a). Intra-household dynamics play a key role in determining the division of labour between women and men, and their access to and control over productive resources and services. In this regard, they contribute significantly to explain the presence (or absence) of women and men in certain nodes of the chain.

Recognizing women’s domestic help as work is also essential for increasing their socio-economic status within households and communities, and dismantling rigid gender stereotypes about women’s and men’s expected roles and responsibilities (e.g. men as breadwinners and women as exclusively responsible for household chores). This can, in turn, contribute to a renegotiation of unequal gender relations, both within the household and with respect to other value chain actors. Ultimately, gender-sensitive mapping is a first step in identifying the challenges that women and men face in interacting with other actors and accessing market opportunities. These challenges will be further investigated in the specific analysis of the GBCs, which is presented in Part II.

TOOLS FOR GENDER-SENSITIVE VALUE CHAIN MAPPING

Making a gender-sensitive value chain map

(Agri-ProFocus, 2014)

This tool, included in the Agri-ProFocus publication, Gender in value chains – Practical toolkit, aims specifically at rendering women’s work visible along the value chain. Through a series of simple steps, it is possible to obtain a graphic representation of the value chain that shows how women and men participate in each node and interact with other actors in the core and extended value chain (e.g. input or service providers, financial institutions and buyers).

The tool was developed as a participatory analytical tool to be applied in consultation with value chain actors and key informants (both women and men). It requires basic facilitation skills and materials (flipcharts, coloured cards, markers) and can be used to design the value chain map through various phases of group work. The mapping exercise can be structured into three main steps:

Step 1: Map the product flow and the value chain actors in the core value chain

Participants in the mapping exercise are asked to:

1. Define the target area and the product/value chain to be mapped.

2. Identify the different value chain nodes, write each node on a card and put the cards on the board in a logical order (i.e. from production to consumption). Draw the links that connect all nodes (e.g. production, aggregation, processing and distribution).

3. On a different set of cards, list the different actors operating in the value chain. They can include small producers, large/industrial producers, small-scale/artisanal processing units, wholesalers and small retailers, etc.

4. Draw lines between actors to indicate how the product flows along the chain. What is the volume of product handled by each actor? Where is value addition taking place?

■ It is important to remind the participants to think about both the formal and informal value chain.

5. Identify the end market (e.g. local/export market).

6. Indicate the percentage/proportion of women and men for each actor/activity mapped. Identify the actors who contract hired labour and determine if the hired workers are men or women. Identify the businesses that are owned by women and men.

■ Differences can be highlighted using symbols of different colours and size.

■ Depending on the scope of the analysis, it may be worthwhile to further disaggregate the analysis, for example, by taking age into consideration. This helps to visualize whether the chain involves young people or provides new opportunities to engage them.

7. Highlight where women provide unpaid family labour, with little or no control over the income generated.

An example of how the value chain map could look like at the end of Step 1 is provided in Figure 2.

Step 2: Map the support services in the extended value chain (input providers, financial and non-financial services)

At this step, participants in the mapping exercise are asked to:

1. On cards of different colours, list the support services available for the identified actors.

■ These can cover input and service providers, including extension, certification, financial and business development services. Also consider transport and market information as fundamental to value chain operations.

■ Investigate the availability of complementary services that might help with their household responsibilities (e.g. childcare services in the workplace, reproductive health services).

2. On separate cards, identify the opportunities and constraints that women face in accessing and benefitting from these support services. Key questions to stimulate discussion and facilitate the analysis may include:

■ What percentage of women and men have access to these services? Indicate this on the card using different symbols/colours.

■ Do women face specific or additional challenges compared to men in accessing these services? If so, list them on separate cards (marking them with a ‘–’ sign).

■ Are services designed with women’s specific needs and interests in mind (e.g. household obligations, time constraints, limited mobility, lack of collateral)? Are there specific measures to reach them and respond to their needs? If so, list them on separate cards (marking them with a ‘+’ sign).

An example of how the value chain map could look like at the end of Step 2 is provided in Figure 3.

Step 3: Identify factors in the enabling environment that facilitate or hinder women’s participation and benefits

At this step, participants in the mapping exercise are asked to:

1. Examine the broader environment and identify the factors that affect the role and position of women and men of different ages and socio-economic status in the value chain. These can include: legal frameworks or customary rights regarding the ownership of land and other assets; public policies on employment or rural finance; consumers trends; certification standards; infrastructure in rural areas (e.g. for communication or transportation); social norms on and expectations regarding the gender division of labour within the household; and stereotypes about women’s and men’s appropriate jobs and responsibilities.

Key questions to facilitate the analysis at this step include:

■ Do women and men have equal access to productive resources and assets (e.g. land, livestock, equipment)? Do current policies and laws promote and protect women’s rights and opportunities?

■ Do social norms affect women’s and men’s participation in the labour market? Do they influence how labour is distributed along the chain and in the different nodes?

■ How is labour distributed within the household? Do women’s household responsibilities (e.g. childrearing, food preparation) affect women’s or men’s time and their capacity to engage in productive work?

Information gathered through an assessment of the broader context (see Part 1.1, pp. 5-9) can be used in this final step of the value chain mapping, which aims to map the policy and legal environment, and clarify how prevailing social norms influence women and men’s position along the chain.

The ‘map’ obtained through this exercise helps to visualize how the product flows along the chain and is handled by the various actors. It also helps to illuminate the roles women and men play at each step of this process. Once completed, it allows for the easy identification of the actors who are involved in the most profitable nodes of the chain and the actors who have more power to shape the dynamics of the value chain (e.g. influencing or determining the price). One of the main advantages of the tool is that, through a user-friendly process, it makes immediately evident whether women are equally involved in all nodes of the chain or, whether they tend to be concentrated only in specific functions. This can highlight whether there is vertical or horizontal occupational segregation along the chain. If this segregation exists, a deeper analysis of the chain is needed to understand its causes.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON GENDER-SENSITIVE VALUE CHAIN MAPPING

» Mayoux, L. & Mackie, G. 2007. Making the strongest links. A practical guide to mainstreaming gender analysis in value chain development. Addis Ababa, ILO.

» Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Agri-ProFocus & International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). 2012. Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural value chain development. Amsterdam, KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

4 » Analysis of gender-based constraints

The identification of GBCs represents the core of a gender-sensitive value chain analysis. As discussed in the GSVC Framework, GBCs are restrictions on women’s access to resources and opportunities resulting from gender-based discrimination (FAO, 2016a). These constraints play a key role in explaining why women are often unable to develop their full productive and entrepreneurial potential, and participate in agrifood value chains on an equal basis with men. In this regard, GBCs not only hinder women’s economic empowerment, but also undermine the performance of the chain by generating inefficacies and losses.

All value chain analyses seek to identify bottlenecks and constraints in order to select the most effective upgrading strategy. The investigation of GBCs does not aim to replace traditional tools and approaches for value chain analysis, but rather to complement them, so as to ensure that bottlenecks deriving from gender inequalities are not overlooked. Interventions to eliminate GBCs lead to better functioning chains, both from an economic and social perspective. The correct identification of GBCs is therefore an essential step in the selection of the most appropriate intervention strategy. Their identification provides an excellent opportunity to make progress in reaching objectives related to gender equality and value chain development in a synergistic manner.

TOOLS FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF GBCS

Matrix for activity mapping and identification of GBCs

(Agri-ProFocus, 2014)

The Agri-ProFocus toolkit includes two tools for identifying and analysing GBCs. The first one, Activity mapping and the identification of gender-based constraints (illustrated in Table 3), assists practitioners in systematizing information on the gender division of labour and the constraints that women and men face in performing their tasks. In particular, it helps to organize information on:

» the actors operating at each node of the chain;

» the activities they perform at each node;

» the level of engagement of both women and men in each of the activity; and

» the constraints faced by women and men in performing their tasks.

Disaggregating this information by gender allows for the easy identification of the barriers and bottlenecks resulting from gender-based discrimination. The lack of adequate infrastructure limits smallholders’ access to market and services in many rural settings. This common constraint, however, cannot be considered a GBC, as it does not result from discriminatory social norms or attitudes and affects both female and male producers. Women’s unequal access to markets, on the other hand, is often caused or reinforced by gender-based discrimination. In many contexts, women face specific and additional mobility and time constraints compared to their male counterparts: they do not have their own means of transportation, are often discouraged from travelling alone or expected to stay home to take care of children. These constraints, resulting from rigid gender roles and stereotypes, are typical examples of GBCs.

In the example presented in Case Study 3, the analysis focuses on the division of labour between women and men. However, it is always possible to include other categories (e.g. children, youth) to further disaggregate the information. For activities that involve both men and women, it is important to assess the gender that plays the most prominent role or is recognized as mostly responsible for a specific task (the two aspects might not always coincide).

The second tool developed by Agri-ProFocus (presented in Table 4) is helpful to further detail the analysis of the GBCs identified along the chain. In particular, the tool assists practitioners in investigating:

» the underlying causes of each constraint;

» their consequences on the value chain; and

» potential actions to address them.

As already mentioned, identifying the underlying causes of GBCs is essential to address them in a sustainable way, and avoid treating only the symptoms of the problem. At this stage of analysis, it is essential to recall the underlying causes of a GBC can be found at any of the levels addressed by the GSVC Framework: from the enabling environment (e.g. discriminatory laws; gender-blind policies that fail to address gender-based discrimination in access to agricultural services) to the household and individual level (e.g. the unequal division of labour within the household that limits women’s time and opportunities to engage in paid work). Exploring where these underlying causes lie is also critical to understand at which level it is more strategic or convenient to intervene to eliminate a specific constraint.

In practice, the exercise is complicated by the fact that the same underlying cause can lead to different GBCs. Women’s lack of property rights over land and other agricultural assets, for example, is both a GBC in itself and a main factor that shapes other conditions of inequality (women’s limited access to financial services due to lack of collateral; women’s limited participation in producer organizations when land ownership is among the membership criteria). On the other hand, there are other situations in which a GBC has multiple underlying causes. Women’s work burden, for example, often originates from many concurring factors, including the unequal distribution of responsibilities within the household and women’s limited access to labour-saving technologies and practices. Even if cumbersome, the exercise of identifying root causes and causal relationships among GBCs is extremely important in the project design phase. It identifies where the main constraint lie and determines particularly urgent or strategic constraints that the value chain intervention might address.

The tool also helps practitioners to reflect on the implications of each GBC and assess its impacts on the performance of the value chain, and women’s and men’s opportunities to participate in and benefit from the value chain. As a last step, the analysis leads to the identification of possible actions to tackle the identified problems, as illustrated in Case Study 4 presented below.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON THE ANALYSIS OF GBCs

» Herego, E. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Ethiopia. Rome, FAO.

» Katothya, G. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Kenya. Rome, FAO.

» Senders, A., Motz, M., Lentink, A., Vanderschaeghe, M. & Terrillon, J. 2014. Coffee toolkit, sustainable coffee as a family business, approaches and tools to include women and youth. Hivos.

» Umuzigambeho, J.F. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Rwanda. Rome, FAO.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Once GBCs have been identified and analysed, it is essential that actions to address them are integrated in the value chain intervention strategy. Part I of these guidelines, and the publication describing the FAO GSVC Framework (FAO, 2016a), describe at length how overlooking GBCs risks compromising the opportunities for value chain development and perpetuating or even exacerbating gender inequalities. Implementing actions aimed at removing GBCs provides excellent opportunities create synergy in efforts to reach objectives for value chain development and gender equality.

This second part of the guidelines provides an overview of the most common GBCs that practitioners are likely to encounter when analysing agrifood value chains through a gender-sensitive lens. After providing a succinct description of the issue at stake, its underlying causes and implications, the guidelines explore some possible entry points to address the identified constraint, based on FAO’s and other partners’ experience. In particular, next sections will focus on the following GBCs:

» Limited access to knowledge, information and training

» Unequal participation, leadership and decision-making

» Limited access to financial services

» Limited access to inputs and technologies

» Work burden and time poverty

These GBCs are not specific to one particular node of value chain node; they affect women in different roles and capacities throughout the chain (Figure 6). For example, unequal access to knowledge, information and training undermines women’s productivity as farmers (production node), their efficiency as processors (processing node) and their competitiveness as retailers (distribution node). For this reason, the second part of the guidelines is organized by specific GBCs, not by particular nodes of the value chain. Nevertheless, examples and case studies illustrating how the GBC affects different functions and actors along the value chain are provided throughout the following sections.

To assist practitioners in integrating gender-sensitive solutions in the formulation and implementation of value chain interventions, these guidelines provide concrete examples of actions and approaches that have proved successful in overcoming the above mentioned GBCs. The actions suggested in each section are by no means exhaustive. GBCs are multi-faceted and extremely context-specific. Strategies to address them will always have to be formulated based on an analysis of the local context and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to gender inequalities.

As discussed when presenting the tools for gender-sensitive analysis in Part I, GBCs can emerge and have an impact on all the levels described in the GSVC Framework, from the individual and household level to the enabling environment. Addressing gender inequalities effectively may require intervening at all levels using synergistic approaches. The prioritization of actions and strategies will depend on the time and resources available for their implementation, and the overall objectives of the intervention. These guidelines mainly focus on actions to be implemented at the micro level (communities and households) and the meso level (service providers and rural institutions) without addressing explicitly interventions at the macro level (policy and legal frameworks).

1 » Limited access to information, knowledge and training

WHAT IS THE ISSUE AT STAKE?

Unequal access to information, knowledge and technical know-how is a key constraint to women’s productivity and efficiency. Inequality in this area largely explains why women tend to remain concentrated in the low-skilled and least profitable nodes of many agrifood value chains. Trading, for example, requires systematic access to market prices and knowledge of buyers, which most women do not have because they have traditionally been confined to activities in the homestead. Men on the other hand, engage in business activities, such as bulking, marketing and trading of agricultural products. Women producers are often susceptible to severe exploitation by commercial intermediaries and buyers, because they sell at the farm gate and have limited exposure to market information.

There are multiple reasons for the persistence of this gender gap. They can be found at all levels addressed by the GSVC Framework. Barriers preventing women’s access to timely information, technical training and skills enhancement opportunities often originate from the modalities through which support services are provided along the value chain. Rural women continue to be largely excluded from the provision of extension and rural advisory services, which are a key source of information on new agricultural technologies and practices. Since their contribution to agrifood value chains often goes unrecognized, women continue to be significantly underserved by both public and private providers who lack the capacity to target them effectively (Petrics et al., 2015; FAO, 2011a). Similarly, rural women are rarely perceived as ‘entrepreneurs’ (or their entrepreneurial potential is underestimated) and therefore business development services are rarely attuned to their specific needs and interests.

As a result, women mostly receive second-hand information from informal networks rather than from expert providers. Women’s uptake of improved practices, technologies and business skills remains lower than their male counterparts (International Finance Corporation, 2016; FAO, 2011a). In rural areas, there is still a wide gender divide with respect to the ownership and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). These technologies have great potential to support market inclusion and business development, for example, by disseminating price-related information or facilitating access to financial resources (e.g. mobile payments, online banking). Without adequate access to timely information, innovative practices and specialized know-how, rural women are often unable to increase their production, expand their business activities and gain sustainable access to markets.

On the demand side (individual and household level), women’s lower levels of education are a key barrier to specialized and technical training. Despite rapid progress in recent decades, education remains an area in which gender differences are significant and widespread across regions, particularly in rural areas and for agricultural research, science and technology. Household and caregiving responsibilities also pose major limitations on women’s time and mobility. These responsibilities can prevent women from accessing services or participating in training and demonstrations, especially if these learning opportunities are not provided close to the home. Restrictive socio-cultural norms can make it difficult for women to travel or interact with male officers, which can limit their opportunities to receive advice from professional staff. Similarly, women’s limited participation and decision-making roles (discussed in the previous section) in producer organizations also reduces their chances to interact effectively with support services.

WHAT EFFORTS CAN BE MADE TO IMPROVE WOMEN’S ACCESS TO INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING?

Strengthen the capacities of rural advisory services to operate in a gender-sensitive manner

According to a 1988-1989 FAO survey covering 97 countries, only 5 percent of women received extension services. More recent global data are not available, but evidence from specific countries suggests that the situation has not significantly improved. For example, in Ethiopia only 20 percent of extension services reach women; in India, it is only 18 percent; and in Ghana, only 2 percent (Manfre et al., 2013).

The operational modalities of service providers in the extended value chain are rarely attuned to women’s specific needs, and this contributes to perpetuating this gender gap. Strengthening their capacities to reach out to rural women and operate in a gender-sensitive manner is essential to facilitate women’s access to the technical information, knowledge and practices that they need to make their work more efficient and profitable along the chain. FAO defines rural advisory services (RAS) as “all the different activities that provide information and advisory services needed and demanded by farmers and other actors in agro-food systems” (Petrics et al., 2015). This definition is useful because it recognizes the multiplicity of actors involved in providing advisory services at the country level, including public, private, civil society and farmer organizations, with which practitioners might engage during the implementation of a value chain intervention. In this regard, value chain mapping, aimed at identifying, among other things, the support services along the chain, can be a very helpful step to identify the actors who might be more suitable implementing partners.

What efforts can be made to support RAS providers to enhance their capacities to operate in a more gender-sensitive way? Table 5 summarizes the key actions that have been identified by FAO, based on an extensive review of the literature and documented good practices (Petrics et al., 2015).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON RURAL ADVISORY SERVICES

» Chipeta, S. 2013. Gender equality in rural advisory services. GFRAS Brief No. 2. Lindau, Switzerland. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS).

» FAO. 2017b. Pluralistic Service Systems. Market-oriented services for reducing rural poverty. Conceptual framework. Rome.

» FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains – A guiding note. Rome.

» Franzel, S. 2015. Rural Advisory Services: What works? A synthesis on innovative approaches for benefiting and empowering farmers. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

» Mbo ’o-Tchouawou, M. & Colverson, K. 2014. Increasing access to agricultural extension and advisory services: How effective are new approaches in reaching women farmers in rural areas? Addis Ababa, ILRI.

» Sulaiman R. & Blum, M. 2016. Tailoring rural advisory services for family farms. Rome, FAO and GFRAS.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Enhance the provision of gender-sensitive business development services

Business development services (BDS) are defined as the “wide range of non-financial services provided by public or private, local or international, non-profit or commercial suppliers to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the domestic and export-oriented markets” (World Bank, n.d.). They play a fundamental role in supporting the incubation and growth of MSMEs in developing countries. However, their capacities to target women-led enterprises, especially in rural areas, are often inadequate and underdeveloped. This poses major limitations to the expansion and consolidation of women-led businesses in any given node of the value chain. As a result women-owned businesses often remain smaller, less competitive and less profitable than businesses owned by male entrepreneurs.

Strengthening the capacities of BDS providers to operate in a gender-sensitive manner is critical for increasing women’s access to the information, skills and knowledge they need to establish and run a successful agri-business. In contexts in which BDS are absent, the value chain intervention could also envisage establishing them, for example, by expanding the capacities of organizations and networks that are active along the value chain. Table 6 summarizes some key recommendations to consider when working to enhance the capacities of BDS providers to respond to women entrepreneur’s needs and interests. The list is based on recommendations and good practices identified by Associazione italiana donne per lo sviluppo (AIDOS, Italian Association of Women for Development) for promoting women-led enterprises in developing countries (Lustrati, Cirillo and Sommacal, 2012).

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON GENDER-SENSITIVE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

» Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2014a. Gender tool kit: micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise finance and development. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB.

» ILO. 2008. Women’s Entrepreneurship Development Programme. [online].

» Lustrati, A., Cirillo, P. & Sommacal, V. 2012. Promoting women-led small-scale enterprises. Practices and lessons from business incubators and support centres in developing countries. Rome, AIDOS.

» World Bank. (no date). Female entrepreneurship resource point – Module 2: How to make change. [online].

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Improve women’s access to information and communication technology

Despite rapid progress in recent decades, a gender divide persists in access to and use of ICTs, especially in the rural areas of low- and middle-income countries. This is problematic because even simple mobile phones can be powerful instruments to improve women’s access to timely information and facilitate their interaction with other value chain actors, including service providers and suppliers. While traditional technologies, such as rural radios, continue to be important for a large number of people, especially in poor and remote rural settings, new ICTs (e.g. Internet, smartphones) are becoming increasingly important in value chain operations and enterprise management and development. ICTs have a significant labour-saving potential. For example, they can help save on the time and money needed to travel and transport products to warehouses or clients, access updated market information (e.g. through price alerts) and maintain stable interactions with an extended network of clients, partners and suppliers. ICTs also provide RAS and BDS providers with innovative channels to deliver their services, which can help them to overcome women’s time and mobility constraints and reach out to women more effectively.

Possible interventions to promote women’s access to ICT in the context of a gender-sensitive value chain intervention include:

» providing or creating spaces where women who do not own electronic devices can effectively use ICTs (e.g. women-friendly, culturally sensitive public access points and premises used by BDS providers, such as incubators);

» investing in programmes that build girls’ and women’s skills in using computers and mobile phones for Internet to enhance their access to and autonomous use of ICTs;

» promoting women’s participation in groups and associations, or supporting the creation of groups that can invest in ICTs with member’s contributions;

» promoting the integration of ICTs training as part of RAS and BDS provision, and sensitizing organizations and institutions on the potential multiplying effects that these technologies can have on women’s literacy, productivity and business performance;

» partnering with mobile providers to design user-friendly products, with interfaces that are suitable for people with low levels of literacy and little familiarity with technology in general (see Case Study 9);

» promoting marketing strategies and conducting awareness-raising campaigns to dismantle discriminatory gender stereotypes and reduce attitudinal barriers to ICTs usage by women in rural areas (including sensitizing men on the advantages of women’s increased use of ICT);

» partnering with microfinance institutions (MFIs) to develop financing schemes that can facilitate the adoption of ICT for women-led MSMEs.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON GENDER AND ICTS

» ADB. 2014. Gender tool kit: micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise finance and development. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB.

» GSMA Development Fund & Cherie Blair Foundation for Women. 2010. Women & Mobile: A Global Opportunity. A study on the mobile phone gender gap in low and middle-income countries.

» Martinez, I. & Nguyen, T. 2014. Using information and communication technology to support women’s entrepreneurship in Central and West Asia. ADB Briefs No 23. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB.

» Treinen, S. & Van der Elstraeten, A. 2018. Gender and ICTs: Mainstreaming gender in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for agriculture and rural development. Rome, FAO.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

2 » Unequal participation and decision-making power

WHAT IS THE ISSUE AT STAKE?

Inequality in participation and decision-making power at the household, community and organizational level is a widespread and cross-cutting constraint that leads to productivity losses and inefficiency all along the value chain. The constraints faced by women at the individual and household level affect their ability to influence farm-related production decisions. These constraints are also significant factors in determining women’s work burden and use of time, their mobility, their participation in group activities, and their access to necessary services and inputs. Similarly, women’s low levels of participation in rural organizations and institutions limit their ability to access essential services and markets, and reduce their opportunities to strengthen links with other value chain actors and exercise an influence on matters affecting the governance of the chain.

Women are important actors in the agrifood sector. Their active participation in household decision-making and in rural organizations and institutions has been shown to contribute to improved organizational efficiency, and increased knowledge and benefits for all. Nevertheless, business-related household decisions and rural organizations’ membership and management remain overwhelmingly the purview of men, even for agricultural value chains in which women carry the primary responsibility for production, processing and/or value addition (FAO, 2016a; Oxfam, 2013; Penunia, 2011). This imbalance represents a loss for the sector and for individual women who, without the necessary bargaining power to participate fully in rural organizations and maintain control over resources, are unlikely to be able to benefit from interventions aiming at women’s economic and social empowerment. Indeed, evidence has shown that women’s empowerment projects that disregard intra-household power dynamics often end up being taken over by men and result in minimal participation by women. To avoid creating further inequities and to promote more efficient participation of all actors in the value chain, women’s bargaining power at all levels must be addressed.

There are many causes and dynamics underlying women’s lack of effective participation and decision-making, and they are often cumulative. Socio-cultural barriers, such as the association of men with the public sphere and women with the domestic sphere, or the perception that men are better suited to act as leaders, discourage women from active participation and decision-making. These barriers also create structural constraints for women who want to become involved in decision-making processes and play a leadership role. In more conservative areas, it is often not accepted socially and culturally to include women in mixed farmer organizations (Riisgaard, Escobar and Ponte, 2010). Women often face strict restrictions with regards to behaviour and mobility. Even where this is not the case, however, gender norms significantly limit women’s voice and potential influence. Rural organizations that address their male members as individuals rather than as representatives of a household reinforce the idea that men alone have the right to make decisions about production and the family economy. Women’s lower educational levels and limited access to technical training, which contributes to lack of self-esteem and inhibits acquiring leadership experience, are also significant obstacles to their active participation at the household and producer organization level.

At the level of producer organizations, discriminatory laws and by-laws may prevent women’s membership. Even where this is not the case, producer organizations often allow only one member from each household, a practice that tends to favour men’s participation (FAO, 2016a; Gotschi, Njuki and Delve, 2009). Furthermore, producer organization activities usually focus on men’s interests and priorities, which can diminish women’s motivation to join or take an active interest as members. These constraints tend to be self-reinforcing, because women who are not members are unlikely to be aware of what takes place during producer organization meetings, even if their husbands are members, and will be therefore even less likely to benefit or be motivated to join (FAO, 2016a).

At the household level, decision-making is usually determined by the interplay between several elements of bargaining power (Figure 7). Contrary to the assumptions of classical development theory, households do not act as a single unit, and benefits from production are not necessarily allocated in the most efficient manner. Rather, household members both compete and cooperate. Women and men in the same household often have a well-defined division of labour and may pursue separate livelihoods. Consequently, they are likely to have different preferences and priorities. Naturally, decisions involving greater payoffs tend to create competition and are especially likely to sow discord among household members. In these cases, and where preferences differ in general, bargaining power ultimately decides the outcome (Quisumbing, 2003). Men, who often hold the advantage, usually win out. Similar power dynamics also tend to play out in community-level decision-making.

WHAT EFFORTS CAN BE MADE TO IMPROVE WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING POWER?

Promote participatory and equitable decision-making processes at the household level

As stressed by the GSVC Framework, promoting women’s economic empowerment not only entails improving their access to resources and assets, but also enhancing their agency and power (FAO, 2016a). In this regard, the household is a key level to be taken into consideration. As noted in Part I, women often remain disempowered within their own households because of unequal dynamics and relations that build on and reinforce stereotyped gender roles. Women and girls often lack a voice in determining priorities and spending patterns within their households, to the point that they may even be unable to meet their own health care or nutrition needs.

Promoting fair and equitable decision-making at the household level has been demonstrated to lead not only to improved gender equality, but also to increased participation in value chains for women and overall benefits to household economic and food security. Participatory decision-making methodologies enable households and communities to address inefficient or conflict-ridden decision-making that results from imbalances in bargaining power, and ultimately to transform unequal gender norms and relations.

There is a series of tested tools, methodologies and approaches that can be adopted as an integral part of value chain intervention strategies, which shift the main focus of interventions from an attention on things, such as assets and infrastructure, to people, and consider who they want to be, and what they want to do.

» Household methodologies: In line with the GSVC framework recommendations, these methodologies, promoted by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), work within the ‘black box’ of a household. Household methodologies are strategies for empowering households to create a common vision, assess their current situation and jointly participate in livelihood planning. The focus of all these methodologies is to bring together the various livelihood strategies and priorities of household members, and support their conversion into a coherent strategy that will allow them to work toward concrete, time-bound goals. Importantly, the emphasis of the strategies is not on empowering women, possibly at the expense of men, but rather on helping household members to realize that working together benefits everyone. Entry points to work at household level can be group activities or individual household mentoring. Practitioners can select the most appropriate approach based on the type, cost and duration of their intervention. IFAD has developed a toolkit that includes a selection of methodologies, a step-by-step guide and a collection of case studies.

» ‘Effective/democratic decision-making between household and producer organization’ (Agri-ProFocus, 2014): This participatory tool focuses on understanding the interaction between the producer organization and the household economy, and on the need to democratize household decision-making. It helps participants to reflect on the importance of members making informed economic decisions in consensus with other household members, rather than making decisions by themselves. Through a series of role-play activities involving both male and female household members, participants come to see the value of good communication and shared information, and incorporating household members’ varied points of view into decision-making processes at the producer organization level. This tool can serve as a useful complementary activity to the implementation of household methodologies.

Promote women’s participation in rural organizations and institutions

To improve women’s ability to participate actively in rural organizations, intervention strategies must be developed to address the most relevant GBCs women face. The resources below are some recommended strategies for practitioners to consider when planning interventions:

» Increasing women’s access to producer organizations through analysis of GBCs (Agri-ProFocus, 2014): This tool includes an assessment checklist (see Box 6) and a selection of potential strategies to address some of the most common constraints identified by practitioners (see Table 7). These two elements are used together to encourage practitioners to link analysis and design, and motivate practitioners to formulate their own strategies in response to context-specific GBCs.

» Rural women’s participation in producer organizations (Kaaria et al., 2016): This review paper provides an overview of the main barriers to women’s participation in producer organizations, and a discussion of lessons learned and good practices that can help to guide future intervention strategies. Recommended strategies are summarized in Table 8.

» GAIN Methodology (Elbeheri et al., 2013): This methodology aims to stimulate organizational change from the bottom up in order to enable producer organizations to become more self-sufficient, profitable and responsive to the needs of all members. Starting with a comprehensive participatory assessment of the organization, the methodology facilitates the development, implementation and monitoring of an action plan by the producer organization members themselves, resulting in improved governance and accountability, an empowered and engaged membership, and socio-economic improvements for all. Governance, Autonomy, Integration, Needs-based (GAIN) is the result of a reflection on the reasons for the enormous successes achieved by India’s SEWA, and promotes women’s participation and leadership as essential conditions for achieving these results.

» Dimitra Community Listener’s Clubs (FAO, 2011b): Dimitra is a participatory information and communication project that contributes to improving the capacities and visibility of rural populations, particularly women. The Dimitra Clubs provide opportunities for groups of rural women, men and young people to meet regularly to discuss their needs, priorities and challenges, and take collective action to solve problems using their own ideas and resources. The approach is highly adaptable to local needs and has led to major improvements in gender relations and social cohesion at the household and community levels. It has also led to significant increases in bargaining power and self-confidence for women, some of whom have even begun to run for and be elected to local office. This has given them greater influence over local processes regulating access to land and economic opportunities.

Train and mentor women leaders

Promoting female leadership is essential for achieving sustainable, long-lasting gains for female members of producer organizations. A strong cohort of female leaders will ensure that women’s interests are likelier to be served. It will also create a pool of potential role models, giving greater motivation to younger women to participate and develop their own skills. The inclusion of women in the leadership of a producer organization also sets an important precedent. It is one of the most effective ways to challenge beliefs and stereotypes about women’s lack of ability to lead, which are often deeply ingrained. Key recommendations for practitioners include:

» Awareness activities conducted as part of the intervention should also include communication about the importance and benefits of female leadership and transparent governance in producer organizations.

» Leadership development training for women should be gender-sensitive and take into consideration the specific learning needs and motivations of women. For example, encouraging women to focus on working toward a specific goal or purpose may be more effective than asking them to suddenly start viewing themselves in a manner that challenges long-held assumptions.

» Training should focus not only on current women leaders, but also on potential future leaders and motivating men to become allies and champions.

» Training alone is often insufficient. In order to have a lasting effect, training should be combined with mentoring and peer support, and linked with women’s groups and/or international and domestic travel experiences, if possible. (See Elbehri and Lee, 2011, for an account of African women producers’ learning experience with SEWA in India.)

The following resource is recommended for interventions that incorporate a leadership training dimension:

» Leadership Training Manual for Women Leaders of Cooperatives (ILO, 2005): This manual is designed to raise awareness and build the capacity of current and future women leaders. It was designed with the Asia-Pacific region in mind, but can easily be adapted for use in other regions. The first module, which focuses on achieving an understanding of gender-related issues, is open to both men and women. The following six modules are specifically designed for building women’s capacity, and focus on functional knowledge and personal development. The manual also adopts a variety of learning methods to cater as much as possible to participants’ varied learning styles.

Promote women-only organizations and informal groups where appropriate

Lack of knowledge and experience constitutes a significant obstacle to participation and decision-making for women. Evidence suggests that women who actively participate mixed organizations are more likely to already have experience as members and organizers in other groups, often informal or female-only organizations (Kaaria et al., 2016; Oxfam, 2013).

In certain contexts, strengthening women-only organizations and informal groups can be an effective strategy to promote increased participation, self-confidence and leadership skills for women. They provide a space where women can express themselves freely and generate solutions to address their specific needs. Promoting women-only groups is highly likely to be beneficial in conservative contexts with very restrictive gender norms and in value chains (or value chain nodes) that are dominated by women. The promotion of women-only groups can also serve as a complementary strategy in contexts where women are being marginalized within larger mixed groups. Women-only groups tend to be less economically beneficial than larger mixed groups with better access to resources and services. However, women-only groups provide a space for women to gain invaluable experience and skills that can be transferred to broader organizational contexts and make it more difficult for men to appropriate benefits (Oxfam, 2013; IFAD, 2015).

Fostering women-only organizations and informal groups can also increase material benefits for women by improving access to resources, networks and transport, and may lead informal groups to progressively become formalized. However, from an economic standpoint, there is also the risk that too strong an emphasis on these groups will lead to further marginalization of women and/or their relegation to less profitable or less significant value chains (IFAD, 2015). Practitioners should exercise caution when choosing to implement this measure. Good practices to mitigate this potential marginalization include:

» ensuring the participation, buy-in and support of men throughout the process and encouraging male leaders to help create an enabling environment for women and women’s groups;

» integrating complementary activities into project design, such as addressing barriers to membership and participation for women in mixed producer organizations (see preceding sections);

» linking informal and other women-only groups to formal producer organizations, or creating women-only wings within mixed producer organizations.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING

» FAO. 2005. Rapid guide for missions: Analysing local institutions and livelihoods. Rome.

» FAO. 2015. Dimitra Clubs: a unique approach. Rome.

» IFAD. 2014. Rural Women’s Leadership Programme: Madagascar, Nepal, the Philippines and Senegal. Good practices and lessons learned. (2010-2013). Rome.

» IFAD. 2015. Promoting the leadership of women in producers’ organizations: Lessons from the experiences of FAO and IFAD. Rome.

» Oxfam. 2014. Transformative leadership for women’s rights: An Oxfam guide. Understanding how leadership can create sustainable change that promotes women’s rights and gender equality. Oxford, UK.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

3 » Limited access to financial services

Limited access to finance is one of the major constraints to women’s productive and entrepreneurial potential in agrifood value chains (World Bank, n.d.b; IFC, 2016). Across all regions, women face gender-specific barriers and more barriers than men in gaining access to formal financial services. The 2014 Global Findex database shows great progress has been made in expanding financial inclusion around the world. However, inequalities persist, particularly among women. In developing economies, where account penetration increased by 13 percentage points for both men and women between 2011 and 2014, the gender gap in account ownership remains a steady 9 percentage points (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2015).

There are many reasons for this persisting inequality in access to financial services. In many contexts, legal barriers and cultural norms still prevent women from holding bank accounts or entering financial contracts in their own right. In rural areas, women often lack official documents to prove their identity and are consequently unable to meet basic requirements in the application procedures set by formal financial institutions (FIs). Since collateral is typically required for loan products, women are indirectly excluded from service provision because they very often lack ownership of land or other household’s assets. On the demand side, women’s lower education levels and financial literacy also contribute to limiting their effective use of available services. Women may be less knowledgeable about available financial products, and less self-confident in seeking advice from professional providers.

On the supply side, the operational and delivery modalities of most FIs contribute significantly to perpetuate inequalities in access to financial services. The limited availability of services in rural settings is exacerbated by the fact that, since women’s role in agriculture often remains invisible, providers fail to target them as legitimate clients. Their portfolio of products is often inadequate, and staff and management typically lack the knowledge and the capacity to design and deliver services to meet the needs and priorities of rural women operating in agrifood value chains (World Bank, n.d.b; IFC, 2016; Lustrati, Cirillo and Sommacal, 2012; FAO, 2011a). As a result, women mostly rely on semi-formal and informal services, such as Saving and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs), Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAs), special programmes operated by NGOs, self-help groups, private moneylenders, family networks and input suppliers. There are certainly advantages in these informal services (e.g. better penetration in rural areas, lower transaction costs). However, the limited availability of financial products and the low volumes of credit and savings can be a major constraint for women’s productive and entrepreneurial potential, and consequently for agrifood value chain development. Generally, SACCOS, ROSCAs and similar informal institutions only provide short-term, small loans and savings services, which limit the possibility of investing or expanding productive activities. Without sufficient access to credit, women are often unable to bear the risks and upfront costs associated with the innovations and investments necessary to start up or expand their business (e.g. buying high-quality inputs or new equipment, investing in training or hired labour).

Over the years, microfinance programmes, developed as programmes for financial inclusion, have contributed significantly to improving women’s access to credit opportunities. However, it has become increasingly recognized that microfinance is a solution that also presents some challenges. The rigidities of microfinance can be limiting for women. These kinds of programmes tend to be credit-led and fail to provide the broader range of services that poor and rural women need, particularly, savings. In addition, microfinance does not typically meet the financial needs of agricultural activities and MSMEs. Even when targeting vulnerable women excluded by the banking sector, microfinance institutions tend to target off-farm activities, rather than agricultural entrepreneurship.

WHAT EFFORTS CAN BE MADE TO IMPROVE WOMEN’S ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES?

Build capacities of financial institutions to explore innovative financial models

The public sector and FIs, both formal and semi-formal, can play an important role in improving access to finance for rural women and women-led MSMEs. Servicing rural women, however, requires that providers acknowledge the specific needs of this market segment and tailor their products and delivery modalities accordingly.

As discussed with regard to other service providers operating in the extended value chain, strengthening the capacities of FIs to target women in agrifood value chains and in rural settings with tailored products and services is essential for overcoming constraints on the supply side. The actions listed in Tables 5 and 6 in relation to RAS and BDS can also apply to financial service providers. These actions can provide useful directions on how to assess and enhance the gender-sensitivity of their services, both in terms of content and delivery modalities.

There is still limited knowledge on the impact of financial models that work for women. Nevertheless, many interventions on the ground have successfully demonstrated that women are a profitable and a loyal market segment, and that investing in women can not only be safe, but even lucrative. A key first step consists in carrying out participatory market research to identify the rural finance products and operational modalities that would be effective for specific value chain actors (both women and men) and in specific contexts. Different mechanisms and schemes can be developed by service providers to enhance women’s access to finance. For example, input suppliers and buyers, together with cooperatives and MFIs, are becoming more and more relevant as financing channels for commercial and semi-commercial smallholders. Examples of financial services and products that have proved to better serve rural women and women-owned MSMEs in agrifood value chains are included in Table 9.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL MODELS FOR WOMEN

» African Development Bank (AfDB). 2013. Financial inclusion in Africa. Tunis, AfDB.

» Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2014. Gender tool kit: micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise finance and development. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB.

» Department of International Cooperation (DFID) and German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ). 2013. Promoting women’s financial inclusion—A toolkit. DFID.

» Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI) & International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2011. Strengthening access to finance for women-owned SMEs in developing countries. Washington D.C., IFC.

» GSMA. 2013. Unlocking the potential: women and mobile financial services in emerging markets.

» IFAD. 2009. Gender and Rural Microfinance: Reaching and empowering women. Rome.

» Yalman, I., Kaaria, S. & Mhlanga, N. forthcoming. Promoting women’s access to rural finance: challenges and opportunities. Rome, FAO.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Enhance rural women’s financial literacy and education

Ensuring that FIs operate in a more gender-sensitive way is critical to closing the gender gap in rural finance. However, it is also important not to underestimate the need to build capacities on the demand side and improve rural women’s financial literacy and education. Women and girls need to be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to make sound and responsible decisions about spending, saving, borrowing and investing in order to make the best use of services and products available.

Data show that, across all regions, women are generally less aware of the advantages of having a bank account and less likely to know about or visit formal services for receiving support and advice. According to the 2015 Global Financial Literacy Survey, two-thirds of adults worldwide are not financially literate. In almost every country, women have lower financial literacy than men (Klapper, Lusardi and van Oudheusden, 2015). Providing financial education and training, in partnerships with other actors operating along the extended value chain, is essential for building women’s confidence to deal with formal financial service providers and seek advice when needed. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2013), interventions that aim to enhance rural women’s financial literacy should consider the following:

» Financial literacy programmes tend to be more effective when targeted to specific sub-groups based on women’s life cycle (e.g. younger or elderly women; married women), wealth status, or economic profile (e.g. salaried work compared to entrepreneurial work, a micro-sized enterprise versus medium-sized enterprise).

» Providing training in connection with the provision of specific financial products/services (e.g. savings accounts, loans, insurance) can have positive effects on both expected outputs and increase women’s financial awareness and the actual use of the product proposed.

» Combining financial literacy programmes with other training that might be relevant for women (e.g. reproductive health, business and job training, life skills, etc.) can work both as an incentive and as a means to provide women with multiple opportunities to enhance their skills and empower themselves.

» Women trainers and role models can be engaged in order to create a more supportive learning environment and foster women’s leadership skills and self-confidence.

» Starting financial education at a very young age is critical for improving both financial inclusion and women’s empowerment. Evidence suggests that gender differences in financial knowledge already emerge at a young age. This highlights the importance of delivering financial education as soon as possible and opening up the possibility to shift discriminatory socio-cultural norms in the long term.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES OF FINANCIAL LITERACY AND EDUCATION

» International network on financial education. 2013. Addressing women’s needs for financial education. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

» Klapper, L., Lusardi, A. & van Oudheusden, P. 2015. Financial literacy around the world: Insights from the Standard & Poor’s Rating Services Global Financial Literacy Survey.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Improve joint financial decision-making at the household level

Women’s access to and control over financial resources are often constrained at the household level. In many contexts, women unless they are financially independent (e.g. widows, female-headed households), still tend to have less decision-making power over how to manage and invest household resources. In this regard, household methodologies are ideal to complement financial literacy programmes. These methodologies engage both women and men in discussions about intra-household dynamics that may prevent some family members (female, but also younger members) from making independent financial decisions related to their work or economic activities (e.g. investing in a new technology, hiring labour, requesting a loan).

Household methodologies provide an excellent entry point for discussing how to develop an investment plan, improve risk assessment capacities and identify the knowledge and skills needed to move towards common and agreed financial goals at the household level. Shared financial objectives might include increasing savings, purchasing new agricultural inputs or repaying debts. This approach can be particularly helpful with rural households, where the household members are often engaged in the family business with different, but complementary, roles. For further details on household methodologies and their application, please refer to Section 2 on unequal participation, leadership and decision-making.

4 » Limited access and adoption of inputs and technology

Access to high-quality inputs and technologies is another area in which rural women are at a disadvantage in most low- and middle-income countries. There are gender gaps for a wide range of agricultural inputs and technologies, including machines and tools, fertilizers, crop protection products, animal breeds, improved plant varieties and irrigation schemes (FAO, 2011a). This is problematic as agricultural productivity heavily depends on access to high-quality inputs and technologies, and their correct use. Research carried out by the World Bank in six African countries, for instance, shows that gender disparity in the use of inputs is one of the main reasons for the difference in women’s and men’s agricultural productivity (O’Sullivan et al., 2014).

A number of barriers, including those discussed in this second Part of the guidelines, lead to this unequal access to and adoption of inputs and technologies. Limited control over household income combined with difficult access to credit and other rural financial services are a major constraint for rural women who rely on quality productive resources. Women’s limited access to information and knowledge also put them at a disadvantage with respect to inputs and their correct use, which ultimately translates into unequal returns from these inputs. This mainly results from women’s unequal access to extension and rural advisory services, which are a key source of information and training in rural areas and communities. Input suppliers are often challenged by the difficult access to rural areas (e.g. due to lack of infrastructure) and, even when serving them, often fail to recognize women’s role in farming and other agricultural activities, stereotypically seen as male-dominated tasks. As a result, women tend to receive advice and information from informal networks and household members rather than from experts, which affects on their capacities to use available inputs correctly and systematically.

From a value chain perspective, improving women’s access to the right inputs is pivotal not only to improve production and processing processes, but to open up new markets for input providers. It also benefits agribusiness companies and ultimately consumers, since it helps to safeguard the quality and sustainable supply of agricultural products. It should also be recalled that women already play a variety of roles in relation to input provision along agricultural value chains. They are active as small-scale farmers who sell and provide products to input suppliers, and as retailers and agro-dealers. Addressing this specific GBC therefore offers multiple opportunities to strengthen women’s position along agrifood value chains, not only as producers, but also as input providers and marketers. (IFC, 2016).

WHAT EFFORTS CAN BE MADE TO IMPROVE WOMEN’S ACCESS TO INPUTS AND TECHNOLOGY?

Strengthen the link with input suppliers by supporting women’s agro-dealerships

Agro-dealers (including agro-vets) can play an essential function in agrifood value chains. They can serve as a link between input suppliers and farmers, and between farmers with output markets and traders. Many smallholders, particularly in Africa, do not have a well-stocked agro-retailer within a reasonable distance. Even when inputs are accessible, the widespread counterfeits and the poor quality of products reduce trust in the products’ effectiveness.

Agro-dealers can supply a variety of inputs, such as high-quality seeds, machinery and fertilizers. They can also provide information on their correct use, along with advisory services on a number of agricultural practices (e.g. animal health, farming technique) directly to rural communities. An increasing number of agro-dealer shops are used as service and information hubs, and as training facilities in which dealers themselves train farmers on input use. In many contexts, for example, they set up demonstration plots and organize demonstrations to highlight the benefits of the inputs they sell to the farmers in their region or district. As discussed in Section 1 on access to knowledge, information and training, this kind of RAS has proved more successful in reaching out to rural women because they are provided closer to their homes or farms. They are also delivered in highly practical ways (learning by doing) and are available on a continuous basis.

Training women as dealers and supporting the establishment or growth of their agro-dealerships have multiple advantages. First, these activities provide new employment and entrepreneurship opportunities for women outside the production node. Second, the increase in the number of agro-dealers means that farmers can access quality inputs and advice much closer to home, which can contribute significantly to overcoming women’s mobility and time constraints. In addition, the presence of female dealers can contribute to increasing rural women’s access to inputs and related services, especially in contexts where socio-cultural norms prevent women’s effective interaction with male sellers and providers. It also allows companies to gain access to larger markets, reach out to rural areas and increase brand loyalty as a result of the correct use of products (IFC, 2016; IFC, 2013).

Explore gender-sensitive mechanisms for financing input purchases

Affordability is another important constraint to smallholders’ access to high-quality inputs and productive technologies. There are a number of mechanisms for financing smallholders in value chains, and forging or strengthening linkages among different value chain actors, including input suppliers, buyers, producer organizations and financial institutions. Some banks, for example, have started to pursue lending through local agro-dealers in order to expand their activities in rural areas. This model has several advantages for smallholders, and for female clients in particular: interaction with a known and trusted agent; the proximity of the service to the household or farms; lower transaction costs; and an integrated package of financial and non-financial services (training and demonstrations on the use of the input). Outgrower programmes, linking networks of smallholder farmers with domestic and international buyers, can facilitate smallholders’ access to higher quality inputs and improved technologies. In these programmes, inputs are usually purchased in bulk by buyers (processors, aggregators) and lent to farmers at the beginning of the season. The loan is then recovered from the crop sale, which has been granted to that specific buyer. However, entry requirements and guarantee mechanisms used by many credit schemes end up preventing most women from joining.

As discussed in Section 3 on access to financial services, targeting rural women effectively involves acknowledging their specific constraints and tailoring products and delivery modalities to their needs and interests. In particular, to ensure that women (particularly smallholder women) do not lose out on credit and input provision schemes provided by companies operating along the value chains, it is critical to:

» ensure that a man’s signature (as head of household) is not required to approve the loan or pre-financing arrangement because this can discourage or prevent women from participating in the scheme;

» foster women’s participation in cooperatives or associations as a means to access credit as a group. Horticultural and other companies in East and Southern Africa have successfully used group guarantee schemes to provide smallholders with inputs and ensure repayment of loans; and

» ensure that alternative forms of collateral are accepted. Most women smallholders do not have formal ownership of land, and therefore, such a requirement would exclude them. There are several solutions that could be introduced to overcome this lack of guarantee. For further guidance on innovative business models for facilitating women’s access to credit and other financial products, see Section 3.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON WOMEN’S ACCESS TO INPUTS AND TECHNOLOGIES

» Chan, M. 2010. Improving opportunities for women in smallholder-based supply chains. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

» FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains – A guiding note. Rome.

» IFC. 2013. Working with smallholders. A Handbook for Firms Building Sustainable Supply Chains. Washington, D.C.

» IFC. 2016. Investing in women along agribusiness value chains. Washington, D.C.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

5 » Work burden and time poverty

When considering both paid and unpaid work, evidence suggests that, across all regions, women tend to work longer hours than men. In developing countries, rural women’s tasks often add up to a 16-hour day. This is because women, and particularly rural women, are faced with a ‘triple work burden’, consisting of productive activities, household-related tasks and social or community responsibilities. The competing demands on their labour make women time-poor and affect their productivity and efficiency throughout the value chain.

The main underlying causes of women’s work burden and resulting time poverty need to be investigated through an analysis of gender dynamics at the individual and household level, and in the core and extended value chain. The traditional gender division of labour, which is shaped by cultural norms, assigns women a major – if not exclusive – responsibility for domestic work and caregiving responsibilities. It also plays a key role in explaining why women have less time to engage in paid work and income-generating activities, and consequently miss opportunities arising from agrifood value chain development.

Gender roles influence not only the distribution of household-related tasks, but extend to the ‘productive sphere’. These roles determine the activities performed by women and men at each node of the value chain, and the technologies and tools available to them. Much of women’s productive work is unrecognized and unpaid, and thus ‘invisible’. For instance, subsistence farming is often associated with household responsibilities, but it is equally demanding, both in terms of time and effort. This affects women’s capacity to choose how to assign their time, and influences their decisions about whether to engage in income-generating activities or paid work, take advantage of training and skills enhancement opportunities (especially if not provided within the community), and interact with other value chain actors.

Several factors, therefore, contribute to women’s limited access to labour-saving technologies. As discussed in relation to access to information, knowledge and training (Section 1), rural women remain underserved by extension and RAS providers. They are not sufficiently consulted about their needs. Consequently, they have fewer opportunities to be exposed to innovative practices or gain access to tools and technologies that might reduce their work burden and free up their time. Unequal decision-making power and limited control over household resources due to prevailing gender roles also reduce women’s opportunities to invest in labour-saving technologies, tools or inputs, especially when they are expected to have an impact mainly on a typical ‘woman’s task’.

WHAT EFFORTS CAN BE MADE TO REDUCE WOMEN’S EXCESSIVE WORK BURDEN?

Introduce appropriate labour-saving technologies and related services

There is a wide range of technologies and practices that, depending on the local context and the specific agrifood value chain targeted, can offer valuable options for easing women’s work burden. Labour efficiency can be achieved through multiple strategies, including favouring the adoption of technologies that save time spent collecting water and gathering fuel and can be used closer to home; or practices that integrate several activities in one place (such as rice-shrimp or rice-fish farming practices). ICTs, as previously discussed, may have a strong labour-saving potential. They may help reduce the time and costs involved in accessing support services, provide easier access to market price information and facilitate interactions with clients and suppliers. Affordable means of transportation can also be a worthwhile labour-saving solution in value chain intervention, since they can contribute to facilitating women’s access to market and reduce their dependence on intermediaries.

Table 10 provides a list of selected technologies, services and practices that have labour-saving potential for women. They are included on the FAO TECA (Technologies and practices for small agricultural producers) Platform, an online database dedicated to information about technologies and their use. It is important that interventions explore solutions to reduce labour and time invested not only in productive tasks, but also in household-related tasks and caregiving responsibilities. Domestic labour-saving devices are essential to women’s well-being. The time dividend gained from the introduction of labour-saving devices can be invested in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, income-generation. Socializing, taking part in cultural and educational activities, or getting more rest would all be appropriate uses for women’s newly found time.

Interventions that include the introduction of labour-saving technology for women should bear in mind that in rural contexts, technology is often considered the purview of men. Hence, where a technology is successfully introduced and proves lucrative or convenient, men will often take over the activity if precautions are not taken. See Case Study 15 below for an example of an intervention, which took advantage of existing gender stereotypes for the benefit of women, and has successfully prevented male appropriation.

Service providers (public, private, NGO-operated, FFS) can play a key role in supporting the introduction and uptake of new technologies and practices, especially among smallholders and small-scale entrepreneurs in rural settings. They can offer information and advice on available labour-saving solutions to specific tasks, and train users on their correct application. However, as already discussed in Section 1 on access to information, knowledge and training, rural women face specific and additional challenges in accessing and benefitting from RAS. Improving women’s access to support services operating along the extended value chain can play a catalytic role in facilitating their adoption and uptake of labour-saving technologies and practices. A suitable strategy that value chain interventions could consider is to reinforce the capacities of service providers to operate in a more gender-sensitive way (for more specific guidance, please consult Table 3). With specific reference to work burden and time poverty, it would be important to:

» strengthen individual and organizational awareness on women’s and men’s labour and time constraints, and their implications on value chain development;

» train staff and provide them with methodologies and tools to identify work burden issues (see Box 7) and to address potential gender-based technology adoption constraints; and

» identify partnership with organizations that can provide complementary services (not related to the agriculture sector), such as improved access to childcare or piped water for household use.

Even if there are no plans to tackle this specific GBC as part of the value chain intervention, time poverty and work burden should be taken into consideration in the analysis and planning of the intervention, especially if the intervention intends to introduce new technologies and practices. Value chain upgrading strategies that fail to take gender and time issues into consideration risk increasing women’s work burden and time poverty, which will further compromise their opportunities to benefit equally from value chain development.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON WORK BURDEN AND LABOUR-SAVING TECHNOLOGIES

» Arora, D. 2014. Gender differences in time poverty in rural Mozambique. Working Paper No. 2014-05. Department of Economics, University of Utah.

» Blackden, M. & Wodon, Q, eds. 2006. Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Working Paper No. 73. Washington, D.C., World Bank.

» Carr, M. & Hartl, M. 2010. Lightening the load: Labour-saving technologies and practices for rural women. Rome, IFAD and Practical Action Publishing, Ltd.

» IFAD. 2016. How to do: Reducing rural women’s domestic workload through labour-saving technologies and services. Rome.

» Teutsch, B. 2015. 100 under $100: One hundred tools for empowering global women. Berkeley, USA, She Writes Press.

» Van Eerdewijk, A, & Danielsen, K. 2015. Gender matters in farm power. KIT, CIMMYT, and CGIAR.

Links to these resources can be found in the reference list.

Foster a more equitable distribution of labour within the household

Women’s excessive work burden and time poverty are typical GBCs affecting value chain performance. These constraints cannot be identified and addressed without taking into consideration factors at the individual and household level. Labour-saving technologies and practices represent only part of the solution. They need to be complemented by efforts aimed at transforming gender relations at the household level and community level, and promoting a more equal distribution of both productive and reproductive tasks between women and men. See Section 2 on participation, leadership and decision-making, for guidance and resources on promoting participatory decision-making at the household and community level.

Increase women’s membership in groups or associations that lend or purchase as a group

Supporting the creation of women’s associations or strengthening women’s participation in existing ones (women-only or mixed) can help members to lend or purchase labour-saving technologies as a group. This can help overcome individual users’ financial or knowledge constraints.

Participation in groups or associations also facilitates women’s access to assistance in using equipment and tools and their maintenance, and to information on the correct use or application of specific labour-saving technologies and practices. For specific guidance on how to promote women’s participation and leadership in groups and organizations, see Section 2.

References

African Development Bank (AfDB). 2013. Financial inclusion in Africa. Tunis, AfDB. (also available at www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Financial_Inclusion_in_Africa.pdf).

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2014. Gender tool kit: micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise finance and development. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB. (also available at www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/34125/gender-tool-kit-mse-finance-development.pdf).

Agri-ProFocus. 2014. Gender in value chains toolkit. (available at https://agriprofocus.com/toolkit).

Arora, D. 2014. Gender differences in time poverty in rural Mozambique. Working Paper No. 2014-05. Department of Economics, University of Utah. (also available at http://economics.utah.edu/research/publications/2014_05.pdf).

Better than Cash Alliance. 2017. How digitizing agricultural input payments in rural Kenya is tackling poverty: The case of One Acre Fund. Case study. (also available at www.betterthancash.org/tools-research/case-studies/digitizing-agricultural-input-payments-in-rural-kenya).

Blackden, M. & Wodon, Q., eds. 2006. Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Working Paper No. 73. Washington, D.C., World Bank. (also available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPGENDER/Resources/gender_time_use_pov.pdf).

Carr, M. & Hartl, M. 2010. Lightening the load: Labour-saving technologies and practices for rural women. Rome, IFAD and Practical Action Publishing, Ltd. (also available at www.ifad.org/documents/10180/848dd259-19ed-4b68-96f1-7400aa350861).

Chan, M. 2010. Improving opportunities for women in smallholder-based supply chains. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (also available at https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/gender-value-chain-guide.pdf).

Chipeta, S. 2013. Gender equality in rural advisory services. GFRAS Brief No. 2. Lindau, Switzerland. The Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) (also available at www.g-fras.org/en/knowledge/gfras-publications/file/179-gender-equality-in-rural-advisoryservices.html).

Chiquier, M. M., Daadouche Crum, S. & Konidari, M. 2017. Getting credit: Legal rights – Two approaches to developing an integrated secured transactions regime. Doing business 2017. IFC. (also available at www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/WBG/DoingBusiness/Documents/Annual-Reports/English/DB17-Chapters/DB17-CS-Getting-credit-legal-rights.pdf).

Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D. & Van Oudheusden, P. 2015. The Global Findex Database 2014. Measuring financial inclusion around the world. Policy Research Working Paper No. 7255. Washington, D.C., World Bank Group. (also available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/187761468179367706/pdf/WPS7255.pdf#page=3).

Department of International Cooperation (DFID) and German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ). 2013. Promoting women’s financial inclusion – A toolkit. DFID. (also available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213907/promoting-womens-financial-inclusion-toolkit.pdf).

Elbehri, A., Lee, M., Hirsch, C. & Benali, M. 2013. GAIN Methodology: Diagnosis and design of change processes within producer organizations. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3127e/i3127e.pdf).

Elbehri, A. & Lee, M. 2011. The Role of Women Producer Organizations in Agricultural Value Chains. Practical lessons from Africa and India. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i2438e.pdf).

FAO. 2005. Rapid guide for missions: Analysing local institutions and livelihoods. Rome. (also available at: www.fao.org/3/a-a0273e.pdf).

FAO. 2010. Agri-gender statistical toolkit. (available at www.fao.org/gender/agrigender/agri-gender-toolkit/en/).

FAO. 2011a. The state of food and agriculture 2010-11. Women in agriculture – Closing the gender gap for development. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf).

FAO. 2011b. Community listeners’ clubs Stepping stones for action in rural areas. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/014/am604e/am604e.pdf).

FAO. 2015. Dimitra Clubs: a unique approach. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i4706e.pdf).

FAO. 2016a. Developing gender-sensitive value chain. A guiding framework. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6462e.pdf).

FAO. 2016b. The Gender in Agricultural Policies Analysis Tool (GAPo). Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6274e.pdf).

FAO. 2016c. Capacity development support to rural women on the socio-economic and gender aspects of sustainable rural development. A project financed by the Government of Turkey under the FAO-Turkey Partnership Programme. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6301e.pdf).

FAO. 2017a. Strengthening sector policies for better food security and nutrition results: Gender equality. Policy Guidance Note 6. Rome. (also available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i7218e.pdf).

FAO. 2017b. Pluralistic Service Systems. Market-oriented services for reducing rural poverty. Conceptual framework. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i7249e.pdf).

FAO. 2017c. The Gender and Rural Advisory Services Assessment Tool (GRAST). Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6194e.pdf).

FAO. 2018. Gender and food loss in sustainable food value chains – A guiding note. Rome. (also available at www.fao.org/3/i8620en/I8620EN.pdf).

Franzel, S. 2015. Rural Advisory Services: What works? A synthesis on innovative approaches for benefiting and empowering farmers. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). (also available at www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/rural-advisory-services-what-works-synthesis-innovative-approaches-benefiting-and).

Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI) & International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2011. Strengthening access to finance for women-owned SMEs in developing countries. Washington D.C., IFC. (also available at www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/a4774a004a3f66539f0f9f8969adcc27/G20_Women_Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES).

Gotschi, E., Njuki, J. & Delve, R. 2009. Equal number. Equal chances? A case study of gender differences in the distribution of social capital in smallholder farmer groups in Búzi District, Mozambique European Journal of Development Research, 21: 264-282. (also available at https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/2415).

GSMA. 2013. Unlocking the potential: women and mobile financial services in emerging markets. (also available at www.unapcict.org/ecohub/unlocking-the-potential-women-and-mobile-financial-services-in-emerging-markets).

GSMA Development Fund & Cherie Blair Foundation for Women. 2010. Women & Mobile: A Global Opportunity. A study on the mobile phone gender gap in low and middle-income countries. (also available at https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSMA_Women_and_Mobile-A_Global_Opportunity.pdf).

Grassi, F., Landberg, J. & Huyer, S. 2015. Running out of time: the reduction of women’s work burden in agricultural production. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i4741e.pdf).

Herego, E. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Ethiopia. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6695e.pdf).

IFAD. 2009. Gender and Rural Microfinance: Reaching and empowering women. Rome. (also available at www.ifad.org/documents/10180/8551f293-2573-417d-908a-d1841359df57).

IFAD. 2014. Rural Women’s Leadership Programme: Madagascar, Nepal, the Philippines and Senegal. Good practices and lessons learned. (2010-2013). Rome. (also available at www.ifad.org/documents/10180/f42cffd2-de62-481f-bdca-718bd606decd).

IFAD. 2015. Promoting the leadership of women in producers’ organizations: Lessons from the experiences of FAO and IFAD. Rome. (also available at www.ifad.org/documents/10180/4bbbe210-08d0-44cf-95a6-86e7eea09708).

IFAD. 2016. How to do: Reducing rural women’s domestic workload through labour-saving technologies and services. Rome. (also available at www.ifad.org/documents/10180/2b7ac28f-76a2-4537-9c10-2c6e478826e5).

IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2009. The SME banking knowledge guide. Washington, D.C. (also available at www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/b4f9be0049585ff9a192b519583b6d16/SMEE.pdf?MOD=AJPERES).

IFC. 2013. Working with smallholders. A handbook for firms building sustainable supply chains. Washington, D.C. (also available at documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/284771480330980968/pdf/110543-Handbook-Working-with-Smallholders.pdf).

IFC. 2016. Investing in women along agribusiness value chains. Washington, D.C. (also available at www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d19235d7-2ba7-4f7b-b0c6-5198fe9e4d30/Women+in+Agri+VC_Report_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES).

ILO. 2005. Leadership Training Manual for Women Leaders of Cooperatives. Geneva. (also available at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---sro-new_delhi/documents/publication/wcms_124337.pdf)

ILO. 2008. Women’s Entrepreneurship Development Programme. [online]. www.ilo.org/empent/areas/womens-entrepreneurship-development-wed/lang--en/index.htm

International network on financial education. 2013. Addressing women’s needs for financial education. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (also available at www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financial-education/OECD_INFE_women_FinEd2013.pdf).

Kaaria, S., Osorio, M., Wagner, S. & Gallina, A. 2016. Rural women’s participation in producer organizations: An analysis of the barriers that women face and strategies to foster equitable and effective participation. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(2): 148-167. (also available at www.agrigender.net/views/women-participation-in-producer-organisations-JGAFS-122016-8.php).

Katothya, G. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Kenya. Rome. FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i6786e.pdf).

Kidder, T. & Pionetti, C. 2013. Participatory Methodology: Rapid Care Analysis. Guidance for Managers and Facilitators. Oxfam. (also available at policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/participatory-methodology-rapid-care-analysis-302415).

Klapper, L., Lusardi, A. & van Oudheusden, P. 2015. Financial literacy around the world: Insights from the Standard & Poor’s Rating Services Global Financial Literacy Survey. (also available at http://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper_16_F2_singles.pdf).

Lecoutere, E. & Jassogne L. 2016. “We’re in this together”: Changing intra-household decision making for more cooperative smallholder farming. Working Paper. Institute of Development Policy and Management. (also available at http://hdl.handle.net/10568/73444).

Lustrati, A., Cirillo, P. & Sommacal, V. 2012. Promoting women-led small-scale entreprises. Practices and lessons from business incubators and support centres in developing countries. Rome, AIDOS. (also available at www.aidos.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/AIDOS_VBI_7-promoting-women-led-677-.mega_.pdf).

Makoye, K. 2016. ‘Land loans’ offer Tanzanian women entrepreneurs chance to grow. Reuters, 18 January 2016. [online] www.reuters.com/article/tanzania-women/land-loans-offer-tanzanian-women-entrepreneurs-chance-to-grow-idUSL8N14V1Y2

Manfre, C., Rubin, D., Allen, A., Summerfield, G. Colverson, K. & Akeredolu, M. 2013. Reducing the gender gap in agricultural extension and advisory services: How to find the best fit for men and women farmers. MEAS Brief No. 2. Feed the Future. (also available at http://dev.meas.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Manfre-et-al-2013-Gender-and-Extension-MEAS-Brief.pdf).

Martinez, I. & Nguyen, T. 2014. Using information and communication technology to support women’s entrepreneurship in Central and West Asia. ADB Briefs No 23. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, ADB. (also available at www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42466/using-ict-womens-entrepeneurship-central-west-asia.pdf).

Mayoux, L. & Mackie, G. 2007. Making the strongest links. A practical guide to mainstreaming gender analysis in value chain development. Addis Ababa, ILO. (also available at www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/WCMS_106538/lang--en/index.htm).

Mbo ’o-Tchouawou, M. & Colverson, K. 2014. Increasing access to agricultural extension and advisory services: How effective are new approaches in reaching women farmers in rural areas? Addis Ababa, ILRI. (also available at cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/35495).

Nayak, M. 2015. Snapshot SEWA RUDI: A customer-centric approach to designing mobile services for women. GSMA. (also available at www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/GSMA-Connected-Women-SEWA-Snapshot-FINAL_7thMarch_MK.pdf).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Network on Financial Education (INFE). 2013. Women and financial literacy: OECD/INFE evidence, survey and policy responses. (also available at www.oecd.org/daf/fin/financialeducation/TrustFund2013_OECD_INFE_Women_and_Fin_Lit.pdf).

O’Sullivan, M., Rao, A., Banerjee, R., Gulati, K. & Vinez, M. 2014. Levelling the field. Improving opportunities for women farmers in Africa. Washington, D.C., World Bank (also available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/579161468007198488/pdf/860390WP0WB0ON0osure0date0March0180.pdf).

Oxfam. 2014. Transformative leadership for women’s rights: An Oxfam guide. Understanding how leadership can create sustainable change that promotes women’s rights and gender equality. Oxford, UK. (also available at www.oxfam.org/en/research/transformative-leadership-womens-rights-oxfam-guide).

Penunia, E.A. 2011. The Role of Farmers’ Organizations in Empowering and Promoting the Leadership of Rural Women. Paper presented at the UN Expert Group Meeting: Enabling rural women’s economic empowerment: institutions, opportunities and participation, organized by UN Women in cooperation with FAO, IFAD and WFP. Accra, Ghana. (also available at www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw56/egm/Penunia-EP-12-EGM-RW-Oct-2011.pdf).

Petrics, H., Blum, M., Kaaria, S., Tamma, P. & Barale, K. 2015. Enhancing the potential of family farming for poverty reduction and food security through gender-sensitive rural advisory services. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i5120e.pdf).

Riisgaard, L., Escobar Fibla, A. M. & Ponte, S. 2010. Evaluation study. Gender and value chain development. Copenhagen, DANIDA. (also available at www.oecd.org/derec/denmark/45670567.pdf).

Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Agri-ProFocus & International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR). 2012. Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural value chain development. Amsterdam, KIT Publishers, Royal Tropical Institute. (also available at www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/02/Challenging_chains_to_change.pdf).

Sahan, E. & Fischer-Mackey, J. 2011. Making markets empower the poor. Programme perspectives on using markets to empower women and men living in poverty. Oxfam Discussion Paper. Oxfam. (also available at www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/M4POxfam-Making-markets-empower-the-poor.pdf).

Schneemann J. & Vredeveld, T. 2015. Guidelines for value chain selection. Integrating economic, environmental, social and institutional criteria. GIZ and ILO. (also available at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_416392.pdf).

Senders, A., Motz, M., Lentink, A., Vanderschaeghe, M. & Terrillon, J. 2014. Coffee toolkit, sustainable coffee as a family business, approaches and tools to include women and youth. Hivos. (also available at www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2016/08/toolkit_total.pdf).

Sulaiman R. & Blum, M. 2016. Tailoring rural advisory services for family farms. Rome, FAO and GFRAS. (also available at www.fao.org/3/a-i5704e.pdf).

Teutsch, B. 2015. 100 under $100: One hundred tools for empowering global women. Berkeley, USA, She Writes Press.

Treinen, S. & Van der Elstraeten, A. 2018. Gender and ICTs: Mainstreaming gender in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for agriculture and rural development. Rome, FAO.

Umuzigambeho, J.F. 2017. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Rwanda. Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6845e.pdf).

Van Eerdewijk, A & Danielsen, K. 2015. Gender matters in farm power. KIT, CIMMYT, and CGIAR. (also available at www.researchgate.net/publication/282976045_Gender_Matters_in_Farm_Power).

WomenWatch. 2012. UNDP: Good Practice Example. The Multiplatform Project: A Multidimensional Approach to Reducing Rural Poverty. [online] www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/ruralwomen/undp-good-practice.html

World Bank. 2016. Women, business and the law. Getting to equal. Washington, D.C. (also available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/455971467992805787/pdf/99454-PUB-Box393200B-PUBLIC-disclosed-9-9-15-PUBDATE-9-9-15-DOI-10-1596-978-1-4648-0677-3-EPI-210677.pdf).

World Bank. (no date). Female Entrepreneurship Resource Point. [online] www.worldbank.org/en/topic/gender/publication/female-entrepreneurship-resourcepoint-module-2-how-to-make-change

Yalman, I., Kaaria, S. & Mhlanga, N. forthcoming. Promoting women’s access to rural finance: challenges and opportunities. Rome, FAO.