The purpose of this paper is to have a thorough look at the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project from a gender perspective in order to trigger a discussion and to do some groundwork for a consultancy.
The gender analysis framework is taken as a guiding methodology. The focus of the analysis is not on gender relations in rural settings but on the gender sensitivity of the project. What are the project's ideas in respect of gender, how do they relate to the farmers' ideas, and how gender sensitive or specific are the project's institutions? These are the main questions addressed.
It is recommended to look into the relationships between male and female members of households in different socio-cultural settings. Especially the role of the daughter-in-law should be taken into consideration and the equity status of the husband-wife-partnership. What are the constraints and opportunities to change an unequitable gender relation?
It is recommended to look into the reasons why men do not value the contribution of their female household members towards family income: is it because of gender biases or because of the low (cash) value of women's work? It is recommended to look into the workload of men and women as well as into the impact each project activity is expected to have on workload.
It is recommended that women are eligible for training in and credit for income generating activities. It should however not be an aim to involve women. Women's participation is recommended to be their own decision, taking into consideration their time availability, their control over the products or income from the activity to be undertaken or credit requested, and the appropriateness of income generating activity. Regarding the latter the project can distort this decision by promoting only a few activities or providing limited choice. Women will then request for these activities even if they are not suitable since it is better to get something rather than nothing. Regarding control over credit it might be necessary to first change traditional gender roles since credit and cash income are often confined to the realm of men. Women are used as puppets to fulfill men's gender needs in respect to cash. Since men and women have different needs and agenda's, credit is reallocated within the household for a different purpose. The women often ending up worse: without money but with the burden to repay the loan.
It is recommended to work out guidelines for the preparation of business plans for leasehold forestry groups. This is recommended to be done in a participatory way.
It is recommended to review and start implementating the intermediary role of so-called women 'promotors'. Are they drawing women towards the project or are they tuning project facilities to women's needs?
It is recommended to enroll more women in project and line agency staff, yet, keeping gender sensitivity of these women as selection criterium. Furthermore, it is recommended to conduct short practical training or workshops on gender issues for field staff and farmers. Curricula and material (including a trainer's guide) are to be developed.
It is recommended to put more emphasis on participation of and reaching out to female beneficiaries and women headed households, yet keeping motivation and poverty of these women as selection criteria.
It is recommended to make project institutions more gender sensitive. Decision making is recommended to be informal, at least initially. Training is recommended to be done for men and women separately. Planning the 'family enterprise' and leasehold activities might also require initial separate sessions to raise the voices of women. Formats and the monitoring system are recommended to be made gender specific.
It is recommended to look more thoroughly into existing indigenous institutions and their gender sensitivity. Some initiatives are fairly gender specific and could potentially contribution to the project.
There are crucial differences between 'women and development' and 'women in development'. The former strategy often relied on an eurocentric and often paternalistic attitude aimed at women's emancipation. The latter strategy implies a participatory process aimed at gender equity. Equity as opposed to equality means that everybody gets its fair share. It is a continuous point of discussion what is fair.
