GENDER IN THE CSA DISCOURSE: MAKING THE CASE FOR GENDER-SMARTNESSLeisa Perch and Rosaly Byrd, RIO+ CentreContributions from Hlami Ngwenya and Aliness Mumba of FANRPAN

WORKING PAPER SERIES | RIO+ | N0. 3 | JANUARY 2015

Prédio CEGN . Parque TecnológicoRua Paulo Emídio Barbosa 485Quadra 1A . Ilha do Fundão 21941-907 Rio de Janeiro RJ . Brazil+55 (21) 3733 4124 Empowered lives.

Resilient nations.

Disclaimer: “The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or their Member States.”

Photo: ©FAO/Believe Nyakudjara/FAO. 4 August 2014, Dangarendove, Chirumhanzi District, Zimbabwe - A farmer prepares maize grain for grinding at their grinding mill they bought through the garden project at Kushinginga women farmers group at Dangarendove.

2WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors extend sincere thanks and gratitude to key informants and participants in the Gender Survey as well as the COP-CSAESA without which none of these results would be possible. We thank Irene Dankleman and Agnes Babugura for their peer review comments and suggested changes – they were invaluable to the finalization of this Working Paper. We also appreciate the support of Sohaila Abdulali in substantively editing this paper and to Felipe Siston and Fernanda Jardim for the design of the online version. We thank the Government of Norway, through FANRPAN, for their support to this assessment of gender in the context of Climate-Smart Agriculture in Southern Africa.

Affiliations The Lead Author is Policy Specialist at RIO+ Centre and the contributing author served as a consultant to the RIO+ Centre. Hlami Ngwenya and Aliness Mumba of FANRPAN also contributed to this paper.

Abstract2014 is the Year for Family Farming and 2015 is the year in which a new development agenda (referred to as the post-2015 Agenda), Sustainable Development Goals and a new climate agreement are expected to be negotiated and approved. These events and other global developments define climate change and agriculture as two key anchors for development over the next fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years. In each of these intertwined discourses, (in)equality and more so, gender (in)equality, continue to play a pivotal and deciding role. Often determining the scale, scope and distribution of resources, tools and policies and how closely or not they align with realities on the ground.

This working paper considers two critical questions of the Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Assessment: 1) what should “gender” mean for CSA and how could this shape and inform the broader policy agenda at the national, regional and global level? 2) what specific gender gaps currently exist in CSA-relevant policies at the country level and how should this inform a framework for narrowing and eliminating this gap and the role of the CSA project in doing so? Through these questions we are able to analyze and assess the South African experience in this context and its similarities and differences with other global experiences. This, in turn, sheds light on the requirements of a truly inclusive and sustainable development agenda.

The World Centre for Sustainable Development (RIO+)One of the most important legacies of the RIO+20 Conference was the launching, during the High-Level Segment of the Conference, of the World Centre for Sustainable Development (RIO+). Established on June 24th, 2013, the RIO+ Centre works to reaffirm and make actionable the inextricable link between social, economic and environmental policies for the achievement of sustainable development and human well-being.

1WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

“The determination of “smartness” has to come from farmers as evidence that it is doable and brings returns and doesn’t have women bending, digging and doing more manual labour as

CSA has done so far.” [CSA Stakeholder]

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Momentum

2014 is the Year for Family Farming and 2015 is the year in which a new development agenda (referred to as the post-2015 Agenda), Sustainable Development Goals and a new climate agreement are expected to be negotiated and approved. These events and other global developments define climate change and agriculture as two key anchors for development over the next fifteen (15) to thirty (30) years. In each of these intertwined discourses, (in)equality and more so, gender (in)equality, continue to play a pivotal and deciding role. Often determining, the scale, scope and distribution of resources, tools and policies and how closely or not they align with realities on the ground.

Common but differentiated realities1 shape how men and women participate in these two areas, the sensitivity of their livelihoods to even small changes and how and for long they are affected. Context, sectors, country and region are also factors. If sustainable development is not tangible and beneficial for men and women alike, both are much less likely to play a critical and active role or to sustain often costly changes for the cause of sustainability.

As a result, one of the early challenges defined in the World Centre for Sustainable Development

1 Often in climate change and going back to the first Rio Convention, we talk of common but different responsibilities” in resolving global problems. This refers to the fact that the actions causing the problem may be more from one set of countries rather than all but indeed that the problem is everyone’s problem and some will need to act faster even though they bear no responsibility for causing the problem. In this context here, we look at the implementation side of things noting that at the same time there are common issues between men and women but often differentiated realities in terms of capacity to respond, legal rights, access to finance etc, that thus make the difference between wishing to take action or taking advantage of an opportunity and actually being able to do so.

(RIO+ Centre)/Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) Partnership project2 was a multi-pronged one: to Connect the dots between gender and sustainable development, Distill relevant knowledge from making those connections and Make the bridge to the demand for practical and viable solutions on the ground.

The RIO+/FANRPAN Partnership was born out of a common interest in unpacking the potential of CSA to make a triple-win approach to sustainable development actionable and practical. Under a programme on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation being implemented by COMESA-EAC-SADC, FANRPAN has been mandated to support regional programmes aimed at bringing significant livelihood and food security benefits to at least 1.2 million small-scale farmers through the application of well-tested CSA initiatives that combine crop production with agro-forestry and livestock management.

Funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development (NORAD), the CSA initiative led by FANRPAN under which the Gender and CSA Assessment was been designed and implemented, has as its main objective to promote and influence the uptake of CSA policies in East and Southern Africa with the goal of increasing agricultural productivity and at the same time strengthen the resilience of vulnerable smallholder farmers, particularly women and youth, in the context of climate change.

2 The RIO+/FANRPAN Project is a partnership between two Southern-based institutions with the objective of strengthening the social dimensions of climate and agricultural policy by identifying ways to improve, support and enable innovations for sustainability that create social as well as environmental and economic benefits.

2WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

In its efforts to respond to the agriculture-climate-poverty nexus, directly and indirectly, CSA has gained considerable attention and uptake at the highest political levels. It is, potentially, an important green and social innovation blending economic, social and environmental objectives under one umbrella.

The difference between CSA and conventional agriculture is defined by the triple challenge CSA sets out to meet – namely food security, increased income and low-carbon agricultural practices. It is this potential to deliver not just across multiple development goals but to tackle some of the fundamental structural barriers to sustainable rural development

that tends to generate a lot of interest and excitement, as well as improve resilience to climate variability. Its goal of addressing resilience is also good for health, for labour and for general well-being. The nature of the latter challenge is well defined in Figure 13.

3 Olsson, L., M. Opondo, P. Tschakert, A. Agrawal, S.H. Eriksen, S. Ma, L.N. Perch, and S.A. Zakieldeen, 2014: Livelihoods and poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir,M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 793-832. Graph directly sourced from : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20

Figure 1. Graph depicts variability of weather and climate and the impact on the food production cycle, farm-work and coping mechanisms in one calendar based on farmers’ experience in the Lake Victoria Basin in Kenya and Tanzania. Sourced from IPCC WGII-AR5, Chapter 13, Figure 3.4, pp. 14. Originally from Gabrielsson et al, 2012.

3WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

It is engagement of and with the component of the farmer sector at the bedrock of the food production system that also provides critical opportunities for poverty reduction, income equality, improved access to resources as well as indirect wins4 such as greater equality5. In so doing, CSA engages with several of the emerging Sustainable Development Goals comprised in the Outcome Document of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals6, in particular Goal 1 (Poverty Reduction), Goal 2 (Hunger, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture) and Goal 5 (Gender Equality).

I.Making Sustainable Development People-Smart starts with a Gender-Smart Approach

Studies7 show that agricultural development and growth can be particularly effective in poverty reduction (particularly in the early stages of development at the country level) and also for the very poor. Improvements in the quantity and reliability of agricultural incomes have also proven to be effective contributors to poverty reduction.8 The agricultural sector also has multiplier effects on other sectors9 as well as on key development outcomes. Estimates

WG2&f=Chapter%2013 4 Sibanda, Lindiwe Majele, 2014: “African smallholder farm families have lost the elasticity to bounce back.” FANRPAN. Accessed November 28th, 2014. http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d01745/5 Kristjanson, Patti, 2014: “Gender sensitive climate-smart agricultural practices.”http://www.fao.org/climatechange/39932-048e172f50329beac1b48e28a313ff90e.pdf 6 See versions in English and Portuguese here: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html and https://riopluscentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/proposta-gta-para-ods.pdf7 Christiaensen, Luc, Lionel Demery, and Jesper Kuhl, 2010: The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction—an empirical perspective. Journal of Development Economics. http://www.ifad.org/drd/agriculture/13.htm8 Cervantes-Godoy D. and J. Dewbre, 2010: Economic Importance of Agriculture for Poverty Reduction. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/countries/gambia/44804637.pdf9 Mucavele, Firmino G.: True Contribution of Agriculture to Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia Synthesis Report. FANRPAN. http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d01034/Synthesis%20Report%20-True%20Contribution%20of%20Agriculture.pdf

vary, suggesting that Gross Development Product (GDP) from agriculture can be twice, thrice or four times more effective than growth originating in other sectors. It is also asserted that a decline in agricultural productivity (although the actual data relates often to growth) throws people into poverty10, suggesting that the neglect of the sector is not people-smart.

Even so, increased productivity has not always proven to be equally beneficial to both men and women or in the same ways. Even such improvements have not always proved to be equal between men and women or to provide similar benefits to male and female farmers. Even when agricultural productivity is high, women farmers and women involved in agriculture are still not likely to have secure tenure or access to land, or to enjoy equal access to inputs, credit and technology11. Furthermore, high productivity has not always translated to greater distribution of food or access by poor households, greater access and control over key natural resources for food production (e.g. water, biomass, energy) or to anticipated sustained improvements in nutrition and health12. A gender lens lends critical insights that provide a crucial entry-point for people-smartness as inclusivity13.

Moreover, when people-smart approaches including gender-smart approaches are employed, they tend to enhance productivity as well as deliver other co-benefits such as better access to resources, better

10 Cleaver, Kevin, 2012: “Scaling Up in Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition: Investing in Agriculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger”. 2020 Vision (9)(2). International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/focus19_02.pdf11 Ibiya, Clara et al, 2012: African Women’s Leadership in Agribusiness: a Force for More Inclusive Development and South-South Cooperation. Accessed December 9, 2014. http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus24.pdf 12 UNDP, 2013: Powerful Synergies: Gender Equality, Economic Development, and Environmental Sustainability. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/f_PowerfulSynergies2013_Web.pdf13 FAO, 2013: Training Guide: Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security for Rural Development. Second Edition. MICCA http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3385e/i3385e.pdf

4WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

opportunities to build assets and systems for coping with shocks, and greater distribution of income, among other benefits14. According to a recent study15, two main findings cut across a number of interventions related to gender and agriculture: (i) the gendered use, control, and ownership of assets affects the take-up of agricultural interventions, and (2) agricultural interventions affect the gendered use, control, and ownership of assets.

The role of women as the drivers of smallholder farming in Southern Africa has pivotal relevance on the context of CSA and to the vision of CSA as more than increased technology or production. Ensuring women’s equal access to land, resources, credit and markets that provide investment, local and private, national and international, can ensure that CSA reaches its full potential16. Greater, differentiated,17,18 but equal access to CSA tools and techniques as well as climate services could potentially change how resources are used19 and improve

14 See Footnote 5.15 Kieran C., Chiara Kovarik, and Evgeniya Anisimova, 2014: “An opportunity to dream big”. CGIAR. http://www.pim.cgiar.org/2014/05/14/an-opportunity-to-dream-big/#_ftn116 World AgroForestry Centre, 2013: Addressing Gender in Climate-Smart Smallholder Agriculture. Policy Brief No. 14. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/PDFS/PB13013.PDF17 See Sarah Lynagh, Arome Tall and Alexa Jay, 2014: “One size does not fit all: considering gender, equity and power in climate information services.” CGIAR. http://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/one-size-does-not-fit-all-considering-gender-equity-and-power-climate-information-services?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=cgiarclimate#.VHcPp4fGor4; Arame Tall, Patti Kristjanson, Moushumi Chaudhury, Sarah McKune and Robert Zougmore, 2014: Who gets the information? Gender, power and equity considerations in the design of climate services for farmers. Working Paper No. 89. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/49673/CCAFS%20WP%2089.pdf18 Tall, Arame, Patti Kristjanson, Moushumi Chaudhury, Sarah McKune and Robert Zougmore , 2014: Who gets the information? Gender, power and equity considerations in the design of climate services for farmers. Working Paper No. 89. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/49673/CCAFS%20WP%2089.pdfhttps://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/49673/CCAFS%20WP%2089.pdf19 UNDP, 2012: Overview of linkages between gender and climate change. Accessed on August 13th, 2014 http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/Gender%20and%20Environment/PB1_Africa_Overview-Gender-Climate-Change.pdf.

the balance of gendered roles in agriculture20.

The risk which climate change poses to the agriculture sector has significant implications for the poverty-reducing capacity of the sector and in turn, for rural development generally, and can severely limit the options available to countries along with creating or further exacerbating poverty and inequality. Tackling climate change, and at the same time, making agriculture more adaptive, environmentally sound and climate-smart is therefore fundamental to inclusive, sustainable and sustained development, to the extent to which rural and poor rural people are included and benefit, and the sector’s capacity to contribute to sustained human development progress.

Smallholder farmers, with limited capacity to invest or manage risk due to poorly functioning credit and insurance markets, are often constrained in their ability to increase yields and incomes, and are particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate change and current climate variability. Women often play a key but undervalued and unpaid role in maintaining agro-biodiversity21 and agricultural production. Agro-biodiversity is critical to some of the proposed climate-smart agriculture responses including those elements reliant on biomass and organic matter.

The link between gender and agriculture is therefore extensive. It has long been made and the link between gender and climate change has been consolidated in research and in global policy, for example in the UNFCCC de-cisions at COP 18 to mainstream gender into the global discourse and the recent commit-ment by the Green Climate Fund, one of the largest global funds, to be a leader in gender

20 Perch, Leisa, 2014: Field Mission Report for the RIO+/FANRPAN Partnership Project. 21 UNDP, 2010: Policy Paper: Intellectual Property, Agrobiodiversity, and Gender Considerations: Issues and Case Studies from the Andean and South Asian Regions. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/poverty-reduction/poverty-website/intellectual-property-agrobiodiversity-and-gender-considerations/Policy%20Paper%20-%20Gender%20IP%20studies%20-%20FINAL.pdf.

5WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

mainstreaming22. The latest Report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Fifth Assessment Report or AR523, further builds the evidence case for the link be-tween gender, agriculture and climate change identifying how the intersection between them, creates significant stressors in and on the lives of the poor. Its detailed analysis highlights the body of evidence proving that adaptation to climate change and mitigation of climate risk are a challenge and opportunity for wom-en, households and communities as a whole.

Beyond the work of a few early starters like the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN (FAO)24 and the CGIAR Research Programme

22 Green Climate Fund, 2014: Green Climate Fund Board takes key decisions on operations and makes progress on ‘Essential Eight’. http://gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/GCF_Press_Release_fin_20140222.pdf 23 See footnote 3.24 Lambrou, Yianna and Sibyl Nelson, 2010: Farmers in a Changing Climate: Does Gender Matter: Food Security in Andhra Pradesh, India. FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1721e/i1721e.pdf

for Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)25 as well as the International Land Coalition (ILC) and the Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN), the discourse on gender, climate and agriculture is only now consolidating, and the attention it is garnering extends beyond conferences and global policy meetings, generating a specific group of stakeholders – a Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture Discussion Group has formed within the FAO-led Climate Smart Agriculture Group under D groups as part of their Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme26 and leading also to enhanced capacity-strengthening tools

25 Kristjanson Patti, 2014: Gender sensitive climate-smart agricultural practices. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/39932-048e172f50329beac1b48e28a313ff90e.pdf26 FAO, 2014: Community for Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture Learning Center. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/79527/en/

Figure 2. Multidimensional vulnerabilities and their intersections with capacities and opportunities, and how climate change and variability impacts people (Source: IPCC, 2014, Working Group Chapter 13, Figure 13.5). See footnote 5

6WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

such training guides27.

Other efforts include the webinar on “Gender roles & Relationships in Post-Harvest Management” hosted by Helvetas28, Swiss Intercooperation in June 2014, where a number of case studies on post-harvest management from Mozambique and Benin were explored linking other elements of the gender and agriculture nexus. In particular, the Helvetas webinar identified the following:

• The distribution of roles can depend on several factors such as the owner of production, the ethnic group, the crop, its use (seeds, grains of consumption or marketing) and the social status of women (this was the case in Benin).

• Patterns that emerged seem to suggest that gender roles depend on the activity (marketing and selling vs. what and how to eat). Some activities such as deciding what to grow, harvesting and future planning seemed to be done both jointly and separately by men or women (this was the case in Mozambique).

Critically, they underscore the localized nature of how gender inequalities play out in influencing access, power and decision-making. At the national level, the FANRPAN-commissioned scoping reports, bring another perspective. Governments have already found ways to respond to some of these gaps and links, albeit inconsistently. Mozambique, for example, is one of the few countries in the Southern Africa region with a Strategy for Gender and Environment and Climate Change and a Strategy for Gender and Agriculture but more analysis is needed to ascertain the extent to which such policies consistently address some of these more nuanced gender

27 FAO, 2013: Training Guide: Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security for Rural Development. Second Edition. MICCA. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3385e/i3385e.pdf28 Helvetas is partnering with FANRPAN in implementing Post-harvest Management projects in Benin and Mozambique

differentiations. A case study on the Strategy for Gender, Environment and Climate Change identifies a number of strategic elements and value for empowering sustainability29. Arising from these patterns of practice and policy, is a clear need for gender to serve as a lens and an entry-point for inclusion, integration and collective action is easily argued.

II.Methodology for Assessing Gender in the CSA Discourse

In order to better understand the current policy environment and the extent of its responsiveness to these kinds of strategic and practical gender needs, we considered three overall questions in our Gender Assessment:

• What should “gender” mean for CSA and how could this shape and inform the broader policy agenda at the national, regional and global level?30

• What do we need to get out of the CSA project to promote a robust and consistent gender-responsive CSA approach that would be enabled through project outputs but also via the institutional partners of the project (operational and strategic)?

• What specific gender gaps currently exist in CSA-relevant policies at the country level and how should this inform a framework for narrowing and eliminating this gap and the role of the CSA project in doing so? What potential barriers to adoption could policy incoherence create?

This Working Paper considers, in the main, the

29 Perch, Leisa and Rosaly Byrd, 2014: Grounding Inclusion and Equity in Public Policy: A Case Study on the Mozambique Strategy for Gender, Environment and Climate Change. RIO+ Centre, December 2014.30 Small tweaks were made to the original question given the fact that the deeper analysis started so late in the project process and in recognition that the findings would be unable to influence how the project was being implemented.

7WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

first and third of these questions. The Overall Gender Assessment Report will address all three but focus specifically on Questions 2 and Question 1 as a response to the findings to Questions 3. In this way the project outputs complement each other.

To better “understand what gender means in the context of CSA” and to identify “What specific gender gaps currently exist in CSA-relevant policies at the country level and how should this inform a framework for narrowing and eliminating this gap and the role of the CSA project in doing so? What potential barriers to adoption could policy incoherence create?”, we employed a three-pronged methodology.

Exploring these questions in the context of five focus countries: Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, we used a blend of (i) desk-based literature review, (ii) a deep-scan of existing policies linked to agriculture, climate change gender and (iii) obtaining perspectives from five main stakeholder groups (farmers, policymakers, civil society organisations, private sector/media31 and academia). This approach allowed us to consider both qualitative and quantitative information.

The desk-based literature review considered both scoping studies already initiated by FANRPAN, recent studies/research on CSA in general as well as specific to Southern Africa. The deep-scan allowed us to go beyond the policies identified in the scoping studies (which were often limited in scope) to include mining regulations and updates, Family Laws and other policies as well as legislation and practices, in science, technology, and other areas that shape the enabling environment, for achieving equality.

The final element, stakeholder input, was gathered through three mechanisms: (i) key informant interviews via two field missions to Zimbabwe, Swaziland and third-party

31 Given the relatively small size of this grouping, this group also covers Theatre for Policy Advocacy actors who also participated.

consultants in Mozambique which filled gaps in the scoping reports (particularly where gender analysis was relatively weak or generalized)32; (ii) an online survey targeting 300+ persons and (iii) an E-discussion on Gender and CSA in the RIO+/FANRPAN Community of Practice on CSA in Eastern and Southern Africa. More information on the overall methodology can be found in the Background Paper: Towards More Equitable and Sustainable Development: Mainstreaming Gender-Appropriate Strategies for CSA in Southern Africa: Methodological Approach33. Questions were kept consistent across the key informant questions and the online survey as much as possible and the deep-scan criteria employed were shaped by those questions as well as responses from the key informant interviews.

The deep-scan policy review considered the extent to which policies addressed decision-making, participation, economic opportunities, institutional culture, tenure and capacity building in the context of gender and gender mainstreaming with a focus on both strategic and practical gender needs identified and well established. Specific criteria ranged from whether policies encouraged convergence and coherence between gendered development outcomes and other policies and sectors, promoted the creation of co-benefits for gender equality and women’s economic empowerment through and with climate change mitigation/adaptation and development, or tackled transformative change by encouraging positive practices while discouraging or imposing penalties for actions which could create inequality. More details on the questions and the results of the analysis are provided in the Background Paper (mentioned previously), the Survey Report (also an output from this series) and the Assessment Report.

32 The same gap filling questionnaire used for the missions to Zimbabwe and Swaziland (April and May 2014) were used by the local consultants in Mozambique. 33 Perch, Leisa, 2014: Towards More Equitable and Sustainable Development: Mainstreaming Gender-Appropriate Strategies for CSA in Southern Africa: Methodological Approach, An Output of the RIO+ Centre-FANRPAN Partnership. RIO+ Centre, December 2014.

8WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

The following sequence was used:

• Review of three of the Scoping Reports as the other two were not available or delayed in finalization

• Gap filling missions to Zimbabwe and Swaziland where 19 key informant interviews were conducted

• Deep-scan of existing policies including review of the Scoping Reports of Mozambique and Zimbabwe

• Online survey on gender and CSA for a period of three weeks

• 25 key informant interviews in Mozambique

• E-Discussion on gender and CSA through the COP-CSAESA.;

This sequencing proved important in ensuring breadth and depth of the analysis. The survey, for example, was a response to the limited number of key informant interviews we were able to conduct during the April-May gap-filling missions. Moreover, issues

arising in those interviews were further explored through the online survey. Examples included access to gender-appropriate technologies. This issue gained more focus than it might have otherwise due to the fact, as reported in one of the interviews, that in Swaziland the Agricultural Research Department considers the differential needs of men and women farmers in design and development.

In the initial review of the Scoping Reports we found that some attention to gender and CSA could be inferred by the availability of information and data on resource distribution and access-related issues (see Table 1) in a few contexts.

In the next section, we outline the results of our deeper exploration of the critical themes in the gender discourse in CSA and its implication. Using the following elements of our methodology: (i) key informant interviews in Swaziland and Zimbabwe, (ii) select questions from the online survey and the key recommendations from the e-discussion and (iii) the policy analysis reviews conducted for each of the five countries, we are able to evaluate the scope and shape of the existing local discourse on CSA, and in particular where gender fits and how it fits.

There are limitations to this approach. Relying on online communication limited our reach to and engagement with smallfarmers and the in-depth nature of the assessment of their realities on the ground. Time also limited the time and investment we could make in widening our sample size. Limited by time and by budget, efforts were made, instead, to combine both research and dialogue and to enhance the research and policy interface. As a result, more attention has been paid to communicating interim and final results and using that debate and dialogue process as a form of engagement which also informed the research findings. At a minimum, an initial baseline, specific to the five countries has been established which can be built upon by future research.

Data Available Name of Country Gender disaggregated including irrigation data

Swaziland, Lesotho

Crop preferences by gender/sex Swaziland

Variability in use of materials for food production and links to ownership patterns by gender/sex

Swaziland

Female/male headship of households Lesotho

Capacity building and gender mainstreaming actions across sectors

Lesotho

Robust policy gap analysis including on gender and social issues

Lesotho

Level of understanding of CSA by stakeholders (male and female?) interviewed

Zimbabwe

Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of governance mechanisms

Zimbabwe

Table 1. Data available through the National CSA Scoping Reports

9WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

III.Signposts from the local discourse in Southern Africa

Initial findings from pilot studies carried out under the Women Empowerment in Agriculture34 Index project suggest that while the broad landscape of gender and agriculture issues are similar across countries, variations also exist35. Some of the most acute empowerment gaps were around the following: lack of control over resources, leadership and influence and control over income36. We find similar challenges in tackling CSA in a gender responsive way in Southern Africa. Specifically CSA inherits a number of structural challenges that have long faced the agricultural sector, a number of emerging challenges for the production system and value chain, and also opportunities for productive inclusion.

Our three-pronged approach to understanding the discourse generated a number of interesting elements that help to shape an emerging picture on how the discourse defines the role of gender in CSA and opportunities and challenges to mainstreaming. These emerge largely through three viewpoints into discourse: What stakeholders seem to be saying; What emerges from the Gender and CSA Survey; and How is policy responding.

34 IFPRI, 2012: Feed the Future: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. Accessed on August 15th, 2014. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/womens-empowerment-agriculture-index35 This study, undertaken by IFRI with Oxford Human Poverty Initiative, examines empowerment through the lens of five key factors: production, resources, income, leadership and time and across the gender landscape we have tackled some of these and not all of these at the same time36 IFPRI, 2012: Feed the Future: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. Accessed on August 15th, 2014. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/womens-empowerment-agriculture-index

IV.What Stakeholders Seem to Be Saying

This first layer of the discourse is mainly assessed through key informant interviews and an e-discussion held between the end of October and early November. Key Informant interviews were conducted between the end of April and early May 2014 in Zimbabwe and then Swaziland. Key informants were identified through FANRPAN and their national nodes and over a six day period (3 days in each country), 16 stakeholders were interviewed (see Table below).

The key informant interviews identified the follow-ing elements deemed important by stakeholders for making gender and CSA practicable and actionable, within the public policy framework and outside it:

• The need to consider the extent to which climate change itself has already engineered changes or adjustments or adaptations in gender roles. Often the exploration of gender and CSA has been limited to one view of the role CSA would play on existing gender inequalities including additional burdens, and less on the changes, positive and/or negative, climate change could bring to bear on gender roles in agriculture.

• Women’s empowerment needs to be understood also as women’s ability to communicate effectively on these challenges and demand to be heard.

• In some cases, enabling frameworks seem to be operating without a significant role for the

Country Government NGO/CSO Research/ Academia

Donor/ International Partners

Farmer/ Farmer

Organisations

Total

Zimbabwe 1 1 2 1 0 5

Swaziland 2 4 1 2 2 11

Total 3 5 3 3 2 16

Table 2. Key informants by stakeholder groups in Zimbabwe and Swaziland

10WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

Gender Bureau or Ministry of Gender Affairs. In contrast, while the Gender Bureau was actively seeking to sustain a Gender Focal Point system, this system did not seem to enable them to plug in to such timely and critical issues which could build their base, consolidate some of the practical gains on gender and agriculture and also potentially help to leverage more even with limited staff and funding. Gender Bureaux are challenged due to limited capacities, knowledge and understanding of gender and environment/gender and climate change.

• There is a significant appetite for discussion on Gender and CSA both in the public and the non-public sector, which remains relatively untapped.

• An informant noted that the idea of “smartness” is something that should be defined by the farmers themselves. The same informant noted that CSA should not have “women bending, digging and doing more manual labour as CSA has done so far”.

• Across the board, key informants, both men and women, expressed that gender was relevant to the CSA discourse and action on CSA.

The E-discussion, held between October 15th and November 11th, through the Community of Practice for Climate-smart Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa, also identified a number of critical aspects in addressing gender and CSA. The e-discussion received 23 responses from various stakeholder groups from more than 10 different countries. Members identified a number of important elements, especially stressing communication and valuing the differences in appeal and relevance of communication tools as well as the need to clearly define what success looks like.

On the latter, one participant noted that success of CSA could be defined by “the level of adoption of certain CSA innovations by the participating numbers, the returns to labour, the level of productivity, changed livelihood, wealth creation and level of satisfaction of each of these participating individuals”. On the former another participant noted that “effective tools of communication to raise awareness among farmers include SMS and WhatsApp or social media”(...) In Zimbabwe, street theatre is also becoming popular, since it is spontaneous and easier for people to understand”. Yet another noted that “a study showed that men preferred meetings whereas women preferred field visits, pictorial messages and SMS”.

Overall, some of the main conclusions on gender and CSA were that:

• There is a need to move beyond numbers when working towards mainstreaming gender in CSA. Mechanisms and models should be implemented to ensure effec-tive and sustainable participation of dif-ferent gender groups in CSA.

• Policies and programmes should take into account local cultural norms that inhibit women and youth from making decisions within and about agricultural production. Involving both these groups in the CSA capacity-building process provides several economic and social benefits.

• Mainstreaming gender in different agricultural activities requires a sec-toral-level approach. Raising aware-ness is a first step towards this goal, but it should be accompanied by effec-tive communication on the benefits of certain policies for women in order to generate a change in social norms.

• Effective tools to communicate the benefits of gender policies include co-learning, SMS, street theatre and social media. Radio programmes can

11WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

reach large crowds but can also be used as a political tool.

• Value diversity. Different communica-tion tools should be used when reach-ing out to different groups.

Implications for gender in CSA and for policy responsiveness:

• Gender is relevant to CSA policy and practice but its multidimensional, multifaceted and contextual reality imply few easy solutions for mainstreaming and improving gender-equitable outcomes.

• Gender shapes more than access to land, and control of income; in its broadest sense it can shape how we engage, where we engage and on what we engage in CSA, which can be unresponsive to the needs of those most affected.

• The intensive, volatile and highly sensitive nature of agriculture-based livelihoods demands policy responsiveness that is deep and wide enough to capture most, if not all, of the realities and build a systemic approach to resilience-building.

• CSA cannot meet its goals until all relevant Ministries and policies are engaged in the design, application and implementation of CSA’s development purpose.

• The capacity of the Gender Bureaux to engage on all development issues is more often assumed than guaranteed.

V.What Emerges from the Gender and CSA Survey

Between August 11th and September 16th, the

RIO+ Centre and FANRPAN conducted an online survey on gender and CSA, targeting (i) stake-holders from five stakeholder groups (farmers, policymakers, civil society organisations, pri-vate/sector media/Theatre for Policy Advoca-cy and academia) in our five target countries as well as (ii) stakeholders in the same groups working but not resident, working in the region or interested in CSA development in Sub-Saha-ran Africa more generally37. Accordingly there were two versions of the survey – one for focus countries and one for non-focus countries. Be-cause of the language difference, namely Mo-zambique, the main survey for focus countries was in English and Portuguese. More details on the scope of the survey are provided in the Sur-vey Results Report.

From approximately 300 people contacted, 105 responses were received, 64 male and 41 female, across the two main surveys38. These responses allowed us to extend the stakeholder input into our analysis, digging deeper into how actors saw CSA in general, the relevance of gender in CSA and the contexts in which gender concerns were relevant or not relevant. Overall, respondents came from 13 countries and the participation of stakeholders from Zambia was quite significant, accounting for 26% of all respondents.

We found consensus across the five stakeholder groups on several equity issues:

• differences between how men and women contribute to the value chain,

• women’s larger contribution to agri-cultural labour in smallholder farmers and

• gender-differentiated access to credit and agricultural inputs for CSA.

These findings are generally similar across both focus and non-focus countries.

37 For example, respondents from non-focus countries came from Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Finland, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Uganda and Tanzania.38 Byrd, Rosaly and Leisa Perch (2014). Survey Results Report – Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture.

12WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

Examining gender and CSA more closely through the lens of three questions (How well do you think the existing policy framework supports equal participation of women and men in all aspects of agriculture?, Are there differences in how female and male farmers plant or work on their farm now as compared to previous years? and Which of the following do you think will be MOST important for CSA in the next 10 years? (Choose as many as apply). The options to choose from were (i) credit, (ii) inputs, (iii) technology, (iv) policy, (v)public investment, (vi)public-private sector partnership and (vii) equal access to credit, inputs and technology) we found respondents suggesting largely that policy frameworks enable equal access, that there are significant or some differences between how men and women farmers plant as compared to a decade ago and that over the next ten years equal access to credit, inputs and technology will be as important as technology and policy. The graphics that follow illustrate these patterns in more detail.

How well do you think the existing policy framework supports equal participation of women and men in all aspects of agriculture?

Respondents from both focus and non-focus countries found existing policy frameworks generally enabling. Focus country stakeholders found them to be supporting very well (19% ), moderately well (37%) or slightly well (25%) the equal participation of men and women in agriculture (see Graphic 1) and non-focus country stakeholders felt strongly that policy frameworks were doing so very well.

Are there differences in how female and male farmers plant or work on their farm now as compared to previous years?

Focus country stakeholders found there were largely some differences, significant differences or occasional differences. More than 10% of respondents suggested there were no differences. Non-focus countries stakeholders found there were some differences and significant differences (larger than the other group) and slightly less on occasional differences. In Mozambique, which is separated out because the survey was done in Portuguese rather

than English, stakeholders identified mostly “some differences” and to a lesser extent “significant differences”.

Which of the following do you think will be MOST important for CSA in the next 10 years?

(Choose as many as apply). The options to choose from were (i) credit, (ii) inputs, (iii) technology, (iv) policy, (v)public investment, (vi)public-private sector partnership and (vii) equal access to credit, inputs and technology.

The sample sizes for non-focus countries and Mo-zambique were similar: between 10 and 20 per-sons. The findings vary interestingly in relation to the important places on policy as well as on public investment. Critically, across these two sub-groups and the broader focus country group, significant emphasis was placed on equal access to inputs, credit and technology.

Focus Countries

Non-Focus Countries

Graphic 1A. Response from Focus Countries to Question 1

Graphic 1B. Response from Non-Focus Countries

13WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

Digging even deeper and looking into the perspec-tive of farmers, we find other interesting patterns. Given the medium of the survey, this was quite a small group - about 10% of total respondents. Us-ing a framework employed in IPCC Working Group II

Chapter 13, we explored their perceptions on the extent to which gender inequality exists in agricul-ture and how it may or many not affect farmer resil-ience to climate change (see Table 3).

Although it is to be expected that women and men respond differently due to institutionalized cultur-al differences, and that there will be differences in responses as these specific findings pull experienc-es from five different African countries, the unity

among women in some questions as well as the stark contrast between men and women in deter-mining importance for CSA adoption, suggests im-portant considerations for what aspects of and how CSA may be implemented.

Women farmers also tended to be more united in questions regarding relevancy of climate change to

Focus Countries

Non-Focus Countries

Non-Focus Countries

Graphic 2A. Response from Focus Countries

Mozambique

Mozambique

Graphic 2B. Response from Non Focus Countries

Graphic 2C. Response from Mozambique

Graphic 3A. Response from Non Focus Countries

Graphic 3B. Response from Mozambique

14WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

work, reliance on rainwater for household needs and also the difference in roles between men and women in the agriculture value chain. Women ac-knowledged the importance of outside factors in-cluding the government and farmers’ organisations in adopting CSA approaches, which contrasts with the response of male farmers on the same issue; men tended, largely, to view that the government as the least important in adopting CSA.

In both of the first areas, the breadth and depth of engagement of men is noteworthy. While some in the sector continue to challenge the rele-vance of gender or think that gender may be less

relevant due to heavy investments in areas such as gender budgeting etc., the E-discussion real-ly highlighted the number of men working in and promoting gender in the context of CSA, consider-ing, employing and learning about effective tools, and also the expanding nuanced views of what gender means in the context of CSA. Both these levels of the discourse show that:

• There is acknowledgement in the discourse that gender and CSA is “beyond numbers” and also beyond mere participation and consultation.

Table 3. Gendered perspectives on equality in access to resources and services as well as climate-related needs in farming (Initial Findings). Source: Authors. Based on a framework employed in IPCC Working Group II Report, Chapter 13, looking at gendered experiences in the context of climate change by farmers in Australia and India.

Experiences Male Farmers Female Farmers

Relevance of climate change

to work or livelihoods

▪Men responded that issues of climate were relevant to their work or livelihood (equally between "extremely relevant" and "very relevant)". ▪Half of the men responded that they used information on climate/weather when deciding whether to plant and half of them responded that this information was used for planting or for determining what seeds to plant or for planning the agricultural field.

▪All women responded that issues of climate were "extremely relevant" to their work or livelihood. ▪Women responded that information regarding climate/ weather was used in different ways including: buying/ renting more land; deciding what type of fish to catch/ raise; in deciding whether or not to plant; and for the whole cycle of production & commercialisation.

Policy framework

enabling equal participation and reliability

of public support systems

▪The majority of men responded that the existing policy framework supports equal participation of women and men in all aspects of agriculture. ▪In terms of assistance, there was equal reliance on farmer organisations and on themselves, with less reliance on government and public.

▪Women equally responded that the existing policy framework supports equal participation of women and men in all aspects of agriculture "not at all well"; "slightly well"; "moderately well"; and "very well" ▪Half responded that the most important factor that they rely on in adopting CSA is the government and half identified self-reliance as most important; fewer responded that farmers organisations were most important, and some 25%, a combination. They also tended to rely more on regional organisations than men did.

Similarity of roles and

capacities to respond

▪Men generally often disagreed with the statement that women and men play different roles in the agriculture value chain; while a few considered it to be true and a few others strongly agreed. ▪Most agreed that women do provide most of the agricultural labour in smallholder farms, some “neither agreed nor disagreed", and some also disagreed with the statement. ▪To the statement "Women and men have equal access to credit and agricultural inputs for CSA", most responded they "neither agreed nor disagreed", while a smaller number said they agreed. ▪ Most said there are "some differences" in how female and male farmers plant or work on their farm now as compared to previous years, while a much smaller number said that there were "occasional differences".

▪Half of the women responded that they "agree" with the statement "women and men play different roles in the agriculture value chain" while half said they "strongly agree" with the statement ▪To the statement "Women provide most of the agricultural labour in smallholder farms", half of the women responded that they "strongly agree" with the statement while the other half was equally divided between "agree" and "strongly disagree". ▪Half "disagreed" to the statement "Women and men have equal access to credit and agricultural inputs for CSA" while the other half equally was divided between "strongly disagree" and "strongly agree". ▪Half of women respondents said that there are "some differences" in how female & male farmers plant or work on their farm now as compared to previous years, while the other half was equally split between "significant" and "occasional differences".

15WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

• Gender in the context of CSA is a combination of structural and practical considerations and also a lack of coordination of different elements which in combination could advance gender equality on a number of fronts.

• Greater attention is being paid to differences in learning and in disseminating in which gender may be a pivotal or conditional factor and different and complementary approaches are being tested. These can be shared and up-scaled.

• The discussion on gender has moved beyond the theoretical and the practical to also considering strategic and political dimensions, including the different ways in which these need to be tackled at the same time and over the long-term. A project approach will not change much unless linked to a long-term process.

• Participation is not influence.

• Engendering CSA also considers impact and the desired change as well as how to engage on this in the context of a more variable and potentially volatile reality in terms of weather patterns.

How is Policy Responding?

Given the findings in the preceding section, to what extent have policies in the five countries taken on broadly the links between gender, agriculture and climate change, and in what ways?

The findings above suggest that policy still needs to go some way in responding to some of the demand that will naturally be placed on the public system. Some stakeholders generally find that public policies could be more responsive to gender and CSA, i.e. that there is room for improvement. Our on-going review of the policy landscape in the five countries finds, so far, that such room does indeed exist.

Though none of the countries is without some type of strategy policy and/or legal framework which seeks to treat gender equality in general, and in some

limited cases also address agriculture and climate change, few have policies that address all three at the same time. Some countries have more than 20 policies which, in theory, could contribute to the policy mosaic needed to respond to the complexity of gender and CSA but this is not guaranteed just by more policies. Note is taken, for example, on the range of issues that women farmers identified (and that are reflected) in Table 3 suggesting the need to think of policy beyond even the three more obvious elements of gender, agriculture and climate change. Nutrition, food prices (on the buying side as an alternative for some things which can no longer be planted), deeds, fishing and support to small and medium enterprises could foreseeably be relevant to the needs of women farmers. Given their heavier reliance on public institutions, this underscores the value of more coherent and convergent public policy, particularly across traditionally very distinct sectors.

The review of the policies in Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, mostly from scoping reports commissioned by FANRPAN but also including a wider literature search, has identi-fied at least 89 policies/strategies across the five countries which could be relevant to CSA and/or gender. Many did not refer to gender and/or wom-en at all. Policies include those which deal with is-sues of water quality as well as mining and industry. Across the five countries, 26 policies were identified in Swaziland and eight in Zimbabwe, representing the two extremes of the policy diversity prism. The country with policies most directly related to gen-der and CSA issues is Mozambique (See Table 4).

Our findings also suggest that neither a greater number of policies nor a lesser number of policies is a useful indication of effective coverage. Policy co-herence is not guaranteed by having more policies. Indeed when we look at Zimbabwe’s policies in the context of strategic and practical signposts for gen-der, we find both positive signs and gaps (see Table 5).

The Constitution of Zimbabwe tackles both strategic and practical issues, as does the Traditional Leaders Act. The National Action to Combat Desertification also touches on ‘control over resources’, one of only two

16WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

policies that do so. However, of concern is the fact that neither the Forestry Act, the Rural District Councils Act nor the Communal Land Act include any gender provisions. Critically, the Environmental Management Act did not include or touch on any of the key pointers

of gender and sustainable development. Our findings suggest that these types of gaps are relatively common and these disconnects are not unique to Zimbabwe alone. Such disconnects are also evident in our analysis of Mozambique where gender mainstreaming is

Policy

Addresses CC as a threat multiplier including

inequalities

Reflects socio-ecological

interesection (people +

enviro)

Identifies cross-linkages &

impacts due to other non-

climate factors like mining

Uses (i) quantitiatve; (ii) qualitative; or

(iii) a mix of both; as an evidence base.

Encourages (i) convergence, (ii) coherence,(iii) neither or (iv) partial

efforts with other policies (e.g. forestry, social, mining, economic

development). Include specific refrences (quotes from policy doc)

Addresses gender in the context of (i)

women in development (ii)

gender and development or (iii)

both

Reflects that climate change could or is chang(ing) gender

roles

Constitution P

Land Policy P

Forestry Policy P

PEDSA P (i) (iii)

National Strategy for Climate Change

P P (ii)

(ii) Recognizes National Strategy for Basic Social Protection for Social

Protection; Policy and Stratefy for Development in the Forestry &

Fauna Sector (Biodiversity); National Strategy for Reforestation have

"aligned measures of intervention"

(iii)

Strategy for Gender,

Environment and CC

P PP

Not mining but other factors

(iii)

(i) & (iv)References the Constitution; Enviro Strategy for Sustainable

Development; "Strategy for Gender, Envio and CC and its respective plan

of action looks to define the priorities and proposed interventions

that will be in harmony with other environmetnal actions like NAPA,

Plan to Combat Erosion, Enviro Education Program; etc."

(iii) P

Strategy for Gender in

Agricultural SectorP (ii)

(ii) Recognizes the Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique includes

the principles of universality and equality of gender; Programa Nacional de Desenvolvimento

Agrário (PROAGRI)

(iii)

Mining/Petroleum Law

P(ii) Adheres to the terms of the Land

Policy and other legislations

Corporate Social Responsibility Law

P

(ii)

Family Law (i)

Table 4. Analysis of policy depth in Mozambique

Source: Authors from various sources. PEDSA stands for Strategic Plan for Agricultural Development (2010-2019)

17WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

generally more consistent and robust than in the other 4 countries (see Table 4).

In Lesotho, while the Development Policy

of 2003 calls for equal access to and control over resources such as land and credit, and advocates the allocation of land in accordance with availability, it does not do so in terms

Policy

Promotes co-benefits (or optimizes co-benefits) between climate mitigation

& adaptation & development including risk sharing & livelihood

diversification. Examples of type of co-benefits

identified & strategy for achieving them

Tackles transformative change: (i) encourages climate-smart

gender equitable practices and/or (ii) disencourages/punishes non-

climate smart non-gender equitabe practices

Identifies specific outputs, outcomes &

impacts on gender equality

Promotes gender and sustainable

development good practice at both

practical & strategic levels

Identifies complementary people-

based & institutional based approaches for

supporting the transformation process

Constitution P

Land Policy P

Forestry Policy

PEDSA

(i) Not necessarily climate smart practices, but innovative

agricultural technologies and practices

Strategy:Disaggregated data

P

National Strategy for Climate Change

P "Increase local resiliency, combat poverty, and identify adaptation

opportunities and low cabron development at the community level,

and district planning"

(i) Conservation agriculture, however not in context of gender

For one project, the method of monitor &

evaluation is to measure how many activities are led by

women

P P

Strategy for Gender, Environment and CC

PObjective: "Develop, in an integrated way, the gender perspective into the

environmental sector, to improve quality of life of population, in

particular that of women and of communities, through CC mitigation and adaptation & sustainable use of

natural resources"

(i) Adaptation Strategy 1.4.3: Develop agricultural paractices in

the women's sector to increase production and productivity,

guaranteeing food secuirty and nutrition to support the effects of intensified agriculture and prevent

soil degregadation

P P P

Strategy for Gender in Agricultural Sector

(i) Promote conservation agriculture to involve more women;

Incentvizie adoption of technologies for sustainable

production that are sensitive to gender & give women a better handling of entire agricultural

production; implement programs for food diversification (drought

tolerant crops)

P P P

Mining/Petroleum Law

Corporate Social Responsibility Law

Family Law

Table 4. Analysis of policy depth in Mozambique (Continued)

Source: Authors from various sources. PEDSA stands for Strategic Plan for Agricultural Development (2010-2019)

18WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

of gender. Moreover, the Land Act of 2010 which ensures that all Basotho (citizens of Lesotho) regardless of gender can own land may conflict with provisions in the national constitution which gives customary law more power over all other laws39.

Conclusions

While these findings reflect insights into a complex issue, they begin to create a picture of the opportunities and challenges of (i) understanding the gender dimension of CSA and (ii) the nuances therein that imply the need for a careful and informed approach.

While there seems to be general consensus at a broad level, even there the responses to the questions pose contradictions particularly relating to the adequacy of existing policy and the need for more action. We cannot yet conclude if these are critical contradictions and difficult reconciliations or natural and inevitable in a changing system.

39 Gwimbi, P, P. Likoetla, K. Thabane, P.Matebsi, 2014: Report on Climate Smart Agriculture Policies in Lesotho. FANRPAN.

Part of this may be due to the limited sample size but also the very different communities which come together as the audience, actors and stage-makers of gender and CSA, i.e. policymakers, farmers, researchers, civil society organisations and private sector/communications. Often the change in social and cultural dynamics is both slow and fast and involves both revolution and evolution, within and between these groups and with their interactions with broader society.

Our assessment allows us to make the following observations:

• Women farmers in Southern Africa do face barriers in their ability to adopt CSA practices, including unequal access to credit, technology and agricultural inputs as well as capacity building for CSA;

• While greater attention to gender is being paid across sectors and stakeholder groups and more efforts to include them, participation is not influence. More efforts targeting control and decision-making on

Policy Leadership

Control over

resources Livelihood Ecosystem

Gender-Based Rights &

Participation Governance

Gender-Based Education &

Assets

Constitution of Zimbabwe

P P P P

Environmental Management Act [chapter 20: 27]

P P

National Gender Policy P P P P P P P

Traditional Leaders Act [chapter 29:17]

P P

Communal Land Act[chapter 20: 04]

Rural District Councils Act [chapter 29:13]

Forestry Act [chapter 19: 05]

National Action Plan Combat Desertification

P

Strategic Level Practical Level

Table 5: Mapping Zimbabwe’s policy against practical and strategic gender equality pointers

Source: Authors from various sources. PEDSA stands for Strategic Plan for Agricultural Development (2010-2019)

19WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

the use of resources are still needed to take gender mainstreaming in CSA to the next level;

• The potential uptake by women of CSA and their ability to deploy and sustain CSA could well be hindered by conflicting policy frameworks. More attention to policy coherence could also maximize the impact of limited resources in the face of the overall climate and development nexus challenges;

• Information study is needed to identify differences within agriculture, i.e. between crops, forestry, fisheries and livestock. More information on crops and forestry is more readily available than in the other two areas and most efforts seem to have targeted these two areas – possibly a reflection themselves of gendered patterns of participation in these areas;

• It was reconfirmed that there are differences between how men and women contribute to the value chain. Women farmers tended to see government and farmers’ organisations as important support structures for CSA adoption, reflecting an even greater value for emphasis on policy reform alongside other efforts;

• Both men and women farmers as well as other stakeholders identified some occasional or significant differences between how men and women plant as compared to previous years. Along with some revealed preferences for crops or types of activities, these could shape where the CSA conversation starts at the farm or community level;

• Men and women share common interests in climate and weather information but they also use them for a diverse range of decisions and the extended impacts of those decisions of lives and livelihoods should not be underestimated;

• While integrated policy frameworks do exist, these still largely remain the exception rather than a rule and there is a perceived “implementation gap” on the part of stakeholders across the scale;

• Most policies seem to touch on practical gender needs rather than strategic gender needs, suggesting the need for more focus on women’s leadership and protagonist role in CSA rather than as passive beneficiaries, their control over resources both private and public, and how these are used. This explains, in part, the apparent contradiction between the existence of policy and remaining concerns on equal access to credit, inputs and technology;

• More government attention to gender and CSA is warranted even though policies in general seem to provide an appropriate enabling environment for equal treatment of men and women in agriculture. This seeming contradiction perhaps lies in the limited ability of macro policy to translate into tangible benefits on the ground. The complementary roles of NGOs, the private sector and multi-stakeholder partnerships in general needs further exploration as part of the solution to CSA and to mainstreaming gender into CSA;

20WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

• There is significant appetite for dis-cussions on gender and CSA both in the public and non-public sector, which remains relatively untapped or inconsistently addressed.

• Effective and appropriate tools are not always readily available, nor is finance constructed (at the government level or international level) to leverage multidisciplinary approaches and innovation; and

• A number of issues relating to aware-ness, ability to leverage this aware-ness into demand for action, capacity to demand better policy, reform or improved performance if implemen-tation is below par, are pertinent to the effectiveness and relevance to the types of policies designed at the public policy level for development. These all remain critical challenges for improved governance and influence on policy and policy implementation.

We also observe that understanding what is needed and what works in making CSA more gender-smart is still not always clear. Policy responsiveness is also relatively weak. Thus, gender in CSA, neither in discourse or in practice, seems to be quite fit-for-purpose.

As countries in the region develop their investment plans and extend and expand the scope of their strategies to comply with commitments to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme strategies and relevant implementation plans, the findings of this Assessment also suggest an urgent need to orient and define critical objectives for transformational change, serving as a rallying point for debate, dialogue and coalition-building for meaningful action.

Mainstreaming gender has the potential to make CSA fit-for-purpose, extending

beyond agricultural futures, and in so doing better strengthen its relevance to people rather than to technological solutions to agriculture’s woes.

A greater focus on gender-smartness seems critical in the evolution of what might be a period of revolutionary change for the agriculture sector, long in the making. In so doing, women shift into a more protagonist role in CSA which also, ideally, allows for a more organic and adaptive approach to resilience in the face of greater climate-related as well as economic uncertainties.

21WORKING PAPER SERIES| RIO+ | N0.3| JANUARY 2015

Empowered lives. Resilient nations.

Works CitedCervantes-Godoy, D. and J. Dewbre (2010). “Economic Importance of Agriculture for Poverty Reduction”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fish-eries Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/countries/gambia/44804637.pdf.

Cleaver, Kevin (2012). “Scaling Up in Agriculture, Rural Development and Nutrition: Investing in Agriculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger”. 2020 Vision (9)(2).. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/focus19_02.pdf.

Christiaensen, Luc, Lionel Demery, and Jesper Kuhl (2010). “The (evolv-ing) role of agriculture in poverty reduction—an empirical perspective”. Journal of Development Economics. http://www.ifad.org/drd/agricul-ture/13.htm.

FAO (2013). Training Guide: Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security for Rural Development. Second Edition. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3385e/i3385e.pdf.

FAO (2014).Community for Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture Learning Center. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/79527/en/.

IFPRI (2012). Feed the Future: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/womens-empowerment-agri-culture-index .

Gwimbi,P., P. Likoetla, K. Thabane, P.Matebsi. (2014). Report on Cli-mate Smart Agriculture Policies in Lesotho. FANRPAN.

Green Climate Fund (2014). Green Climate Fund Board takes key de-cisions on operations and makes progress on ‘Essential Eight’. http://gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/GCF_Press_Re-lease_fin_20140222.pdf

Kieran, Caitlin, Chiara Kovarik, and Evgeniya Anisimova (2014). “An op-portunity to dream big”. CGIAR. http://www.pim.cgiar.org/2014/05/14/an-opportunity-to-dream-big/#_ftn1

Kristjanson, Patti (2014). Gender sensitive climate-smart agricultural practices. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/39932-048e172f-50329beac1b48e28a313ff90e.pdf.

Lambrou, Yianna and Sibyl Nelson (2010). “Farmers in a Changing Climate: Does Gender Matter: Food Security in Andhra Pradesh, India” FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1721e/i1721e.pdf.

Lynagh, Sarah, Arome Tall and Alexa Jay. (2014). “One size does not fit all: considering gender, equity and power in climate information ser-vices.” CGIAR. http://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/one-size-does-not-fit-all-con-sidering-gender-equity-and-power-climate-information-services?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=cgiarclimate#.VHcPp4fGor4

Mucavele, Firmino G. True Contribution of Agriculture to Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction: Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia Synthesis Report. FANRPAN. http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d01034/Synthesis%20Report%20-True%20Contribution%20of%20Agri-culture.pdf.

Olsson, L., M. Opondo, P. Tschakert, A. Agrawal, S.H. Eriksen, S. Ma, L.N. Perch, and S.A. Zakieldeen, 2014: Livelihoods and poverty. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir,M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 793-832. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG2&f=Chap-ter%2013

Perch , Leisa (2014) Towards More Equitable and Sustainable Develop-ment: Mainstreaming Gender-Appropriate Strategies for CSA in South-ern Africa - Methodological Approach, An Output of the RIO+ Centre/FANRPAN Partnership. RIO+ Centre, December 2014.

Perch, Leisa and Rosaly Byrd (2014). Grounding Inclusion and Equity in Public Policy: A Case Study on the Mozambique Strategy for Gender, Environment and Climate Change. RIO+ Centre.

RIO+ Centre/FANRPAN (2014). Field Mission Report for the RIO+/FAN-RPAN Partnership Project.

Byrd, Rosaly and Leisa Perch (2014). Survey Results Report – Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture. RIO+ Centre, December 2014.

Sibanda, Lindiwe Majele (2014). “African smallholder farm families have lost the elasticity to bounce back.” FANRPAN. http://www.fanr-pan.org/documents/d01745/.

Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (2014). Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals. http://sustain-abledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html

Tall, Arame, Patti Kristjanson, Moushumi Chaudhury, Sarah McKune and Robert Zougmore (2014).Who gets the information? Gender, power and equity considerations in the design of climate services for farmers. Working Paper No. 89. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/49673/CCAFS%20WP%2089.pdf

UNDP (2010). Policy Paper: Intellectual Property, Agrobiodiversity, and Gender Considerations: Issues and Case Studies from the Andean and South Asian Regions.http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/poverty-reduction/poverty-website/intel-lectual-property-agrobiodiversity-and-gender-considerations/Policy%20Paper%20-%20Gender%20IP%20studies%20-%20FINAL.pdf.

UNDP (2012). Overview of linkages between gender and climate change. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/Gender%20and%20Environment/PB1_Africa_Overview-Gender-Cli-mate-Change.pdf.

UNDP (2013). Powerful Synergies: Gender Equality, Economic Devel-opment, and Environmental Sustainability. http://www.undp.org/con-tent/dam/undp/library/gender/f_PowerfulSynergies2013_Web.pdf.

World AgroForestry Centre (2013). Addressing Gender in Climate-Smart Smallholder Agriculture. Policy Brief No. 14. http://www.worldagrofor-estry.org/downloads/publications/PDFS/PB13013.PDF.

World Bank (2008). World Development Report 2008: Agricul-ture and Economic Growth. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resourcec es/2795087-1191440805557/4249101-1191511674498/4252012-1192562307495/Brief_AgEconGrowth_web.pdf.