Comments on: On the road to gender transformative change http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/on-the-road-to-gender-transformative-change/ A Global Agricultural Research Partnership Thu, 01 Aug 2013 02:04:09 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jacqueline http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/on-the-road-to-gender-transformative-change/#comment-50823 Jacqueline Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:20:57 +0000 http://www.cgiar.org/?post_type=news&p=218925#comment-50823 The comment above makes an important point. All too often attention to gender is sporadic and diluted -- whatever organization is concerned, it needs solid, sustained investment to produce results -- to walk the talk. As of 2013, the CGIAR Research Programs are all expected to dedicate between 5-10% of their total budget to making sure their research is relevant to poor rural women and by 2016 they are required to report the concrete benefits this investment has realized for poor women in their target areas. This is not optional. Even though gender equality wasn’t an explicit part of CGIAR’s objectives until the reform, many of CGIAR's agricultural technologies have benefited women. Take NERICA rice for example – impact studies showed the impact of NERICA adoption on yield was significantly higher for women than for men (more than three times higher). However, later studies showed that women are having to work harder to produce NERICA because it’s more labor intensive. When NERICA was first evaluated (by CGIAR and national program plant breeders with help from the PRGA program) in small varietal trials with women farmers it wasn’t possible to observe how the new varieties affected women’s labor use. It was necessary to keep a watchful eye on gender differences that emerged as men and women farmers gained experience with NERICA rice and at a larger scale. Now with a more vigorous investment in research on gender that looks more thoroughly at the different implications of new technologies for women and men, CGIAR should be able to discover and cater for gender differences more quickly, translating gender analysis into real benefits for women farmers more effectively. My source: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52082/2/Agboh-Noameshie.pdf See also http://ricecongress.com/previous/extPdfs/OP03-4183-Bergman%20Lodin.pdf The comment above makes an important point. All too often attention to gender is sporadic and diluted — whatever organization is concerned, it needs solid, sustained investment to produce results — to walk the talk. As of 2013, the CGIAR Research Programs are all expected to dedicate between 5-10% of their total budget to making sure their research is relevant to poor rural women and by 2016 they are required to report the concrete benefits this investment has realized for poor women in their target areas. This is not optional. Even though gender equality wasn’t an explicit part of CGIAR’s objectives until the reform, many of CGIAR’s agricultural technologies have benefited women. Take NERICA rice for example – impact studies showed the impact of NERICA adoption on yield was significantly higher for women than for men (more than three times higher). However, later studies showed that women are having to work harder to produce NERICA because it’s more labor intensive. When NERICA was first evaluated (by CGIAR and national program plant breeders with help from the PRGA program) in small varietal trials with women farmers it wasn’t possible to observe how the new varieties affected women’s labor use. It was necessary to keep a watchful eye on gender differences that emerged as men and women farmers gained experience with NERICA rice and at a larger scale. Now with a more vigorous investment in research on gender that looks more thoroughly at the different implications of new technologies for women and men, CGIAR should be able to discover and cater for gender differences more quickly, translating gender analysis into real benefits for women farmers more effectively.

My source: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52082/2/Agboh-Noameshie.pdf
See also http://ricecongress.com/previous/extPdfs/OP03-4183-Bergman%20Lodin.pdf

]]> By: Joan http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/on-the-road-to-gender-transformative-change/#comment-50120 Joan Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:15:58 +0000 http://www.cgiar.org/?post_type=news&p=218925#comment-50120 " Activities include conducting gender audits, developing new capacity development approaches, and using data gathering and analysis techniques that disaggregate and clarify gender differences. " When I read your post, I read about workshops and training and video interviews etc... I cannot help but wonder where the meat is.... Sure enough sensitization on gender issues is important, but there have to be tangible outcomes. What tangible outcomes do you have? In what way do all of these workshops, trainings, interviews etc... result in changed agricultural research output, which makes a difference for women? Often when, in the development world, we talk about "gender", people start rolling their eyes. And we, gender practitioners, only have ourselves to blame. There is WAY too much talk and WAY too little practical outcome. And unfortunately, your article just confirms that. I read your article, and I roll my eyes. Unless if I will read of practical outcomes, I will not give any trust nor value on CGIAR's commitment to "gender", and will continue to believe it is all talk, but little action. Please convince me otherwise. PS: Did you not recently stop your "Gender and Diversity" program? Did you not cut yourself loose from AWARD (no matter how successful it was - and had practical outcomes)? Talking about clear actions and commitments, hey? ”
Activities include conducting gender audits, developing new capacity development approaches, and using data gathering and analysis techniques that disaggregate and clarify gender differences.
”

When I read your post, I read about workshops and training and video interviews etc… I cannot help but wonder where the meat is…. Sure enough sensitization on gender issues is important, but there have to be tangible outcomes. What tangible outcomes do you have? In what way do all of these workshops, trainings, interviews etc… result in changed agricultural research output, which makes a difference for women?

Often when, in the development world, we talk about “gender”, people start rolling their eyes. And we, gender practitioners, only have ourselves to blame. There is WAY too much talk and WAY too little practical outcome.

And unfortunately, your article just confirms that. I read your article, and I roll my eyes.

Unless if I will read of practical outcomes, I will not give any trust nor value on CGIAR’s commitment to “gender”, and will continue to believe it is all talk, but little action.

Please convince me otherwise.

PS: Did you not recently stop your “Gender and Diversity” program? Did you not cut yourself loose from AWARD (no matter how successful it was – and had practical outcomes)? Talking about clear actions and commitments, hey?

]]>