Consultative Group on 17 66( 0International Agricultural Research ODe I qq I

The Role of Genderin AgriculturalDevelopment

Susan V. Poats

ISSUES IN 9AGRICULTURE d

i4llo AIP >140 i4l 4k kk>3V

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

_::'::. .......... ...................... . ... .... ............... .R ....... ...........

Published by the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research,CGIAR Secretariat, 1818 H St., N.W.,

- w Washington, D.C., 20433, United States.December 1991.

The Role of Genderin Agricultural Development

Susan V. Poats

ISSUES IN AGRICULTURE, NO. 3Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

.;., ., . ,,,, . . .l., ... .... ... 0 .....

:....:.......... ...:. .......... .......i'i:... f.i... . . . . .. - ' f. . . '- .-Ti-' ... I... .. .. .. . .... ... .. .. ..I.. .. . I.......... ':i.i............. '^... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. &. . .. . . . .

..........h.e. --. 11e1...,'.i'..) .and-6--U t.. ... ;

.--.-. . -. -.. ....... ... . . . ........ ..

0........ ...te0

.- ,.co..',nti, e s i..i-..Dev,~t.c'.t-.'....'.e s:.o-.e.".:G- -:-~ ~ ~~~A U Ch, ............eR.e.pu,... co. re.- ........ . . . . ......- .. .. . . a...C. _ _Ag ...s...... ....",-'i.f,a. .. , ... ...... - - . .-........ . t."eCspb.e..... .... .. .. ... ......' --i",:. .......... ..... ...... .....- ~.de e -.. ng .... . .GOU . ....- . . .e .n .-s .t .f ............ .. .....,i . .. ..I ...e', ... .. . .. .. . .... ..t .. .. . .. . . ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. - ...... ..... . -- .ms... ... .. ..

.-t.h. e. .' id'g ' ,... 'O :'

-l'.iough.'''t',eS-'c.o"'..i.ion.,1'.emati'ti' A.' nG -'' '' " ..:- A '-":' f........ .er..j:in s-, e lve.i ' ...cu'tris..ii-iTX g - o ''itg'.'S,out~~.a........o.. ' ....... ' ..- 0'; ~ ~ ~ R bri,,,:.,.i. ,,',,r-fi. .'o.d... ' f ' '' ".

:g.tirttor'rtinalpoi-ies,-a}d-t-rn-er-ititui"AQvO un...m RE. i.gc.'te.s-h- .6ns.o,'.4 4'5,00Ar itrs .. lso'. .o:

..'.I..,.....'.'r' se.. , a''.' ,ly ....... ..Ee .... .. -' .....'''"' "'-g'.............. ro...''

|, Re,s-efi--Mm. SAm rk:-e.t-o- - f1. '

.-.s.e.. . ... .. ...... ...... ........g'....es.. '-*-, ET- -S --E -i-E iER- E i--ES- -i-g ---i---E-E-E-i: iEEE i iR--ERERER........ .. ...............- ........ ........- i E.EE-,

Contents

Acronyms Used in This Paper ................................. ii

Preface ................................. 1

Introduction .................................. 3

I. A Rationale for a Gender Perspective inAgricultural Research .................................. 5

II. Gender Issues in the Donor Community ................... 9

III. Does Gender Make a Difference? ............................. 10

IV. CGIAR Recommendations and Actions:1981-1986 ................................. 12

V. The 1987 CGIAR ICW Seminar: Summaryand Recommendations on Gender Issues ............... 20

VI. Strategies for Gender Issues: Examples fromthe System ................................. 24

VII. Why the Gender Question is so Difficult ................ 35

VIII. Next Steps ................................. 47

References ................................. 54

i

. :'.'R:.':f.S.".''...''

Acronyms Used in This Paper

AIM Asian Institute of ManagementAWID Association for Women In DevelopmentCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural

ResearchCIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura TropicalCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mej oramiento de Maiz y TrigoCIP Centro Internacional de la PapaDANIDA Danish International Development AgencyEMR External Management ReviewEPR External Program ReviewFAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)FSR Farming Systems ResearchFSRE Farming Systems Research and ExtensionIARC International Agricultural Research CenterIBPGR International Board for Plant Genetic ResourcesICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the

Dry AreasICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid TropicsICW International Centers WeekIDRC International Development Research CentreIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIITA International Institute for Tropical AgricultureILCA International Livestock Center for AfricaILRAD International Laboratory for Research on Animal

DiseasesIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIRRI International Rice Research InstituteISNAR International Service for National Agricultural

ResearchMUCIA Midwestern Universities Consortium on International

AgricultureNARS National Agricultural Research SystemOFR/FSP On-Farm Research With a Farming Systems

PerspectiveTAC Technical Advisory CommitteeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWARDA West Africa Rice Development AssociationWID Women in DevelopmentWIRFS Women in Rice Farming Systems Program

ii

....... ::..:....v...s : ~i -I. .::. :z : :+ :: ': + :::::......... 2.-.........

PrefaceThe origin of this paper lies in a discussion of gender

issues at the annual meeting of the CGIAR held in Washington,D.C. in 1986. The group felt that gender issues needed aspecial focus as part of the agricultural development processbecause different user groups have different technologyneeds. The next year, gender issues were again discussed ata seminar held in conjunction with the mid-year CGIARmeeting in Ottawa, Canada.

At the annual CGIAR meeting -International CentersWeek (ICW - held at Washington, D.C. in 1990, members ofthe Group reviewed the progress made by international agri-cultural research centers in dealingwith gender-related issuesraised at the seminar. A request was made that the issue beplaced on the agenda of the 1990 mid-term meeting of theCGIAR at The Hague.

Susan Poats prepared this paper for that meeting, atwhich she also made a verbal presentation. Stressing the needfor both commitment and improved analysis, she argued thecase for increased efficiency in technology developmentthrough gender analysis, and equality of opportunity forwomen in staffing the CGIAR system.

C'GIAR members endorsed the themes explored in thepaper and urged that measures be taken to close the gapbetween rhetoric and reality. Several follow-up measureshave been taken by the CGIAR, including this publication.

Susan Poats' paper is set in a CGIAR context, but theissues she raises go beyond the CGIAR and the internationalcenters it supports. Weaving gender issues into agriculturaldevelopment requires location-specific, adaptive research,.and relevant app lied research, both firmly anchored in a userperspective.

Gender analysis is a refinement of a user perspective. Itsacceptance as an imperative of agricultural developmentdepends very much on capacities and approaches within thenational agricultural research systems (NARS) of developingcountries. Continued effort is needed to build these capacities,and to increase gender sensitivity in the area of agriculturaldevelopment as a whole.

Publication of this paper is meant to draw attention tothese issues and, thereby, to contribute to the process bywhich gender awareness and gender staffing become perva-sive in the global agricultural research system.

I

The Role of Gender in Agricultural Development

Susan V. Poats'

Introduction

Gender2 issues are not newto the CGIAR system. Indeed,their importance in agricultural research and women's roles inagricultural production and food systems were discussed byCGIAR system members on several occasions during the1980s. Several recommendations concerning gender issueshave been made by the system itself to the member IARCs.These recommendations are:

1. to incorporate the gender variable in research meth-ods and analysis;

2. to include more women farmers in the IARC technol-ogy generation process;

3. to increase the number of women from NARS in IARCtraining programs; and

4. to engage more women professionals in the ranks ofIARC scientific staff, management, and boards.

While several centers have made exceptional progress inadopting and implementing these recommendations, theiradoption across the CGIAR system is uneven. Some centersappear to have ignored them altogether.

'At the time this paper was written the author was Co-Director of theGender and Agriculture Project at the Population Council in New York. InApril 1990 she joined theCentro Internacional de AgriculturaTropical (CIAT)as the Social Scientist for the Cassava Program in Quito, Ecuador.

'Gender describes the socially determined attributes of men andwomen, including male and female roles. In comparison, sex refers to thephysical and biological differences between men and women. Gender is auseful socioeconomic variable to analyze roles, responsibilities, constraints,opportunities, and incentives of the people involved in agriculture. 3

z : : : : :.: ...: o~~~~~~~~~..... ... W: .s

What factors contributed to adoption of a gender per-spective among those centers that have done so successfully?Why have the other IARCs found it difficult to deal withgender issues? What next steps should be taken by the CGIARsystem to ensure system-wide attention to gender?

Guided by these questions this paper addresses fiveareas. It begins with an overview of the rationale for includinggender issues in agricultural research and development, thensummarizes the existing gender issues recommendations madeto the CGIAR system. A synthesis of the discussion andrecommendations made on differential user groups and gen-der issues at the 1987 ICW is included. The next sectionhighlights innovative strategies and approaches taken bysome centers to deal with certain gender issues. This isfollowed by an analysis of the reasons for the difficultieswithinthe IARC community of incorporating gender-sensitiveresearch and development. Based on this analysis, anddrawing upon the successful experiences from within theCGIAR system, the final section outlines next steps andalternative strategies to assist the CGIAR system in achievinga better gender balance in the methods and operation of itsresearch program.

Broad support for this paper's approach was expressedby donor representatives at the 1990 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting.As a result, the TAC Chairman arranged for the author both topresent the paper to TAC in October 1990 and to lead a two-day, awareness-raising workshop on gender analysis andgender staffing in July 1991.

Also as a result of the paper, TAC and the CGIARSecretariat emphasized the status of gender analysis andstaffing in the terms of reference for the independent externalteams which review the programs and management of thecenters every five years.

In addition, the CGIAR Secretariat, in consultation withthe center directors, agreed to set up a program which wouldaddress both gender analysis and gender staffing issues at theIARCs. This agreement was reflected in a Proposal to Donors

4 sent to all CGIAR donors in November 1990. By April 1991

* . ..... . .. . . . ...l o g d

pledges had been made by CIDA, IDRC, the Ford Foundation,Australia, Norway on behalf of the Scandinavian countries,the United Kingdom, and the United States totalling 60 per-cent of the proposed budget. At their June 1991 meeting cen-ter directors agreed to implement the program.

We are now into the last decade of the twentieth century.The 1990 CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting was a turning point inadvancing understanding of gender-related issues and offostering actions that could lead to gender equity in theinternational system of agricultural research. But much workneeds to be done. As we near the twenty-first century it isuseful andtimelyto take stock of where we are in reachingthatgoal.

I. A Rationale for a Gender Perspective inAgricultural Research

In a 1989 IDRC study Patricia Stamp observes that overthe past 15 years there has been "an emerging moral andscientific commitment to the truth that women are half ofhumanity and that gender relations are as fundamental ashaping force in society as are economic relations or politicalstructure. Indeed, there is no political economy that is genderneutral.. .In development discourse, women are no longerentirely invisible, even if they still get far from equal time"(Stamp, 1989:2).

Stamp asks whether Third World social reality has beenadequately considered in technology generation and transferstudies and projects, and calls for testing the scientific accu-racy of each development study by asking whether gendervariables have been properly accounted for.

To a large extent CGIAR donors are calling for this gendertest. Gender analysis3 is now recognized by many develop-ment institutions as an important aspect of the design, imple-mentation, and evaluation of development projects. The factthat women are critical to agricultural production and thattheir access to necessary resources and effective technologies 5

.,. . . .,.Y............al.. ..

is often constrained by gender barriers is confirmed in theexplosion of literature on gender and development, andbytheincreasing number of conferences and workshops on the topicin the intemational research and development community.

However, there is a considerable difference betweenvoicing concern for gender - that is, being sensitized to it -and incorporating gender as an analytical variable in theresearch and development equation. The gap between sen-sitization and incorporation varies across the different de-velopment sectors. In agricultural research, sensitization ofinstitutions is, unfortunately, not widespread, and the gapbetween the few sensitized voices and actual incorporation iswide. What might be called the general 'culture' of agriculturalresearch institutions often compounds the normal difficultiesof introducing gender analysis. Important among these cul-tural features and their implications are:

1. a general belief that technology alone will solveproblems;

2. a view of technology as neutral to socioeconomicdifferences among users;

3. increasing disciplinary and technical specialization,and reliance on research methods that encouragetechnical fixes rather than integrated approaches;

4. relatively recent and scanty inclusion of non-eco-nomic social sciences in technology development,and thus the absence of relevant gender-sensitivemethodologies;

3Gender analysis is the analysis of the way male and female rolesinteract with research or project goals and outcomes. The focus of genderanalysis is less on equity for women and more on the effectiveness andefficiency of development activities. Effective gender analysis leads to betterdefinition of human resource needs and capabilities, and to rectifying thegender imbalance that exists among the professionals involved in researchand development. It results in a more equitable allocation of resources and

6 benefits.

5. a generally conservative institutional political cli-mate that makes the subject of gender seem like aradical intrusion rather than a call for greater effi-ciency of resource use;

6. the language of agricultural research, which has tendeduntil recently to make women invisible by referring tofarmers and researchers only as 'he'; and

7. the extremely low number or absence of womenamong professional or management ranks of researchand extension institutions, which contributes to themale orientation of the research agenda.

These factors reflect deep-seated values that have madeit difficult for agricultural research with relevant technologyto reach low-resource or small farmers, much less to speak ofa gender perspective in technology development.

During the past 15 years a growing client orientation anda gradual shift toward on-farm experimentation has occurredas a result of several new interdisciplinary approaches toagricultural technology development. Most important amongthese are farming systems research and extension (FSRE) andfarmer-participatory or user-oriented research. By focusingmore directly on lower resource farmers and their need forappropriate technology, these approaches have allowed for arecognition of the differences between men's and women'sroles in production, and for the replacement of assumedhomogeneity of farm households with the concept of'intrahousehold dynamics'.

The reorientation and methodologies embodied in theon-farm, client-oriented approach have fundamentally alteredthe relationship between social science and agriculture inthree key ways that have provided fertile ground for theincorporation of gender analysis. This was done by expandingthe range of social science disciplines engaged in agriculturaldevelopment work, placing social scientists on technologydevelopment teams, and developing institutional structuresto provide a home base for the social sciences in agriculture. 7

These changes have expanded the perspective of exist-ing agricultural staff and have brought new professionals,many with gender analysis expertise, into the agriculturalfield. Application of gender analysis tools to the iterativeprocedures of client-oriented technology development is be-ginningto changethe way production problems are identified,the understanding of the division of labor, and the nature offarmer participation.

The tools of gender analysis are more than checklists orguidelines for data collection. They are analytical frameworksdesigned specifically to deal with gender issues (Overholt etal., 1985; Feldstein and Poats, 1990). Their use leads to thedesign of strategies and interventions which ensure that menand women are better integrated into development efforts.

An FAO study showed that the incorporation of genderframeworks into the work of research and development or-ganizations is intimately linked to five conditions:

1. making changes in policy mandates;

2. having senior management and leadership supportand involvement;

3. implementing gender-explicit evaluation and moni-toring mechanisms;

4. having sufficient professional staff with gender exper-tise; and

5. enhancing overall human resource capacity throughtraining (Poats and Russo, 1989).

Evidence indicates that while the first four conditionsare necessary, the fifth appears to be critical.

A survey of projects using on-farm research approachesfound that while there was a correlation between havingwomen and/or social scientists on teams and whether genderanalysis was conducted, not all women or social scientists

8 were successful in conducting gender analysis (Poats, Gear-

ing, and Russo, 1989). Their presence did not guaranteeattention to gender issues. However, in all cases wheretraining in gender issues and analysis occurred, projectmembers did subsequently conduct or improve gender analysis.Training of all project or organization professional staff cansignificantly alter cultural views that have caused genderblindness, 4 and can be a critical step in learning how to dogender analysis and how to incorporate gender sensitivity aspart of the normal research process.

H. Gender Issues in the Donor Community

The above-mentioned FAO study reported on a numberof organizations that are using training as a key tool to promotethe incorporation of gender analysis. Among the institutionsincluded in the study were AIM, CIDA, UNDP, USAID, theWorld Bank, and a number of U.S., Canadian, European, andIndian universities. Institution-wide training courses de-signed to introduce gender issues in development and to trainstaff in the use of gender analysis tools, have been keyelements in the process of incorporating a gender perspectiveinto the development agendas of these organizations.

In another study Eva Rathgeber (1987), an IDRC Womenin Development specialist, reviewed the official positiontaken by nine donors on gender issues and described theefforts they are making to ensure a greater benefit for womenfrom development aid projects. Like those described in theFAO study, many of these donors are major CGIAR systemsupporters. It is clear that as a result of specific policystatements, training of project managers and designers, andqualified leadership, many donors are now considering theirfunding choices with explicit attention to gender issues. Thisfact alone provides a strong reason and incentive for CGIARcenters to increase their attention to gender issues in interna-tional agricultural research and development.

4Gender blindness is the inability to perceive different gender rolesand responsibilities, the perception that all farmers are male (or neuter), andthe failure to realize that research and project activities can have differenteffects on men and women. 9

III. Does Gender Make a Difference?

For those who have added gender analysis to theirtoolkits for diagnosing farm-level problems and for the designor adaptation of new technology, the response is an over-whelming yes: gender does make a difference. There areseveral efforts underway further to document methodologieswhere gender made a difference. Three examples are useful.

In Colombia an on-farm bean and fertilizer researchproject did not initially include women's perspectives onbean varieties because prevailing wisdom held that only menwere engaged in bean production. Cued by anomalies in thepreferences of some households for bean varieties designatedas unmarketable by the project researchers, the team decidedto use participant observation tools to further explore internalhousehold decision making about bean variety preferencesand selection. They learned of the multiple roles of beans inthe household and of the women's key role in influencing thechoice of bean varieties for production. As a result, the teamretained bean varieties in the on-farm testing program thatotherwise would have been discarded by breeders. Includingboth men and women asbeangrowers revealed newinformationabout the bean selection process farmers use. This provedvaluableto beanbreeders and made a difference in the directionof subsequent bean research in the project (Ashby, 1990).

In Zambia the experiences were documented of an on-farm research team that conducted its early diagnosis ofproduction problems only among male farmers. Growingconcern over timeliness and competing needs for labor as thecritical constraint to improving crop production led the teamto conduct a detailed study of household labor resources andallocation. Recognition of the increasingpopulation of female-headed households in the research area led to shifts in theapproaches used to identify different groups with differingpotentials for technology use. Reducing the labor requirementespecially among women responsible for weeding became aresearch priority and led to an experiment mixing maize, thedominant men's crop, with beans, a key cash crop grown bywomen. Both crops were traditionally grown separately. By

10 combining them the researchers hoped to take advantage of

well-known complementary nutritional benefits as well asdecreasing the amount of weeding time, since both could beweeded simultaneously.

However, in farmer evaluations of the technology thatincluded both female and male trial participants, womenvoiced negative reactions. When beans were planted on landnormally allocated to maize, the women lost ownership of thebeans and the men benefitted from the cash generated by theirsales. Since men and women kept their incomes separatewithin households, and each had different responsibilities tofulfill with their cash, loss of the bean income to women coulddecrease the household's welfare. Researchers thus learned ofgender differences in the criteria for a 'successful' technology.Their next research steps would have to consider whetherwomen's ownership of beans could be retained while usingmixed cropping technology, or if other labor-conservingtechnologies would fit more appropriately with the existinggender-segregated cropping system (Chabala and Gichira,1990).

A final example comes from the Philippines and concernsan IPM project that initially worked with male farmers. IPMis considered to be difficult to comprehend and involvesmuch decision making. Because of this IPM is thought to takelonger to learn and to be more difficult to adopt. Althoughresearchers felt farmers in this project were beginning tounderstand the concept, few were adopting it. In searching foran explanation, researchers found that though men did indeeddo the physical labor associated with managing pests, womenalso played a crucial role, "It was the wife who dictated thespecific brand or kind of pesticides to buy and the dosage touse, based on friend's recommendations or based on experi-ences of the husband as to which poison kills most. However,in atight financial situationthe decisionis to settle forthe leastexpensive kind... " (Adalla, 1988). Even if the male farmers didsee a potential value in IPM, their wives continued to purchasepesticides. Once the researchers understood the role womenplayed in determining the choices in pest management tech-nology, women were invited to participate in the IPM dis-cussions and training. This resulted in an increase in the useof IPM because women understood the alternatives to pesti- 11

cides. In addition, the women's involvement led to a projectto develop IPM tools appropriate to their vegetable gardens.

These examples show clearly that gender makes a differ-ence. In all three cases, when researchers pursued who isdoing what in the production system, they discovered thatinitial suppositions were wrong and that both women andmen were involved and needed to be considered in thetechnology development process.

The IARCs, as leaders in the international community ofagricultural practitioners, need to take a serious look at thecritical role they must play and the example they must set infurthering a gender perspective and in enhancing the use ofgender analysis to solve Third World agricultural productionproblems.

IV. CGIAR Recommendations and Actions: 1981-1986

Attention to gender issues in the CGIAR system beganwith a call to consider the importance of women in agricul-tural production. The 1981 Quinquennial Review CommitteeReport on the CGIAR system states:

In manyparts ofthe developingworld, womenplay an important role in agricultural production,for example, as farm owners, managers, sales agents,and field workers. Too often, this role has beenoverlooked resulting in reduced impact or eventotal failure of programmes related to agriculturaldevelopment. Consequently, it is important thatthe System should give explicit attention to the roleof women wherever relevant to its work. In par-ticular, Centers should review their programmes,particularly those on farming systems, to ensurethat the role of women is specifically consideredand that the possibility of differential benefits tomen and women is analyzed. FuTtheTmoTe, we

2 consider that TAC should ensure that the impact on

women of the System's work is fully taken intoaccount in designing and evaluating programmesof work (Report of Review Committee 1981, Para.7.114, p.97, taken from MUCIA, 1983:5).5

While these recommendations call for explicit action,little was immediately taken. At the 1982 ICW, MUCIA'sBarbara Knudson and Jean Weidemann presented a proposalfor a collaborative program on women and agriculture betweenthe MUCIA Women in Development Network and the IARCs(MUCIA, 1983). Theprogramwould have provided consultantservices and have developed materials for education andtraining on women's roles in agriculture. Though the programwas not funded, it was the first time the subject of directingIARC research activities toward the technological needs ofwomen farmers was discussed among donor and IARC rep-resentatives in an ICW plenary session.

In hindsight, the proposal was probably ahead of its time.Few people were making the link between technology de-velopment and the varying technical needs and constraintsof different potential users of new technology. However, thefollowing year the situation began to change within theCGIAR system.

In September 1983, IRRI convened an international con-ference on women's concerns in rice farming. Biologicalscientists, social scientists, and policymakers from 27 coun-tries discussed whether women have benefitted from theintroduction of new rice technology, how women mightbenefit from emerging technologies, and how women's roles

'The Committee addressed a separate but related issue in its Report,where additional recommendations urge attention to the special needs fortraining women as scientists both as professional members of staff for theinstitutions and as future research leaders in the developing countries (Para.5.56 cited in MUCIA 1983:5). The Review Conunittee advised the CGIAR to"make vigorous efforts to increase the participation of women as professionalstaff and to identify women qualified for membership on Boards of Trusteesand of other CGIAR bodies," and to insure that "the Secretariat should reportto the Group, at appropriate intervals, on progress made in these respects"(Para. 7.115, p.97, cited in MUCIA 1983:5). 13

in technology development and transfer might be enhanced(IRRI, 1988). The conference was the catalyst that launchedactivities at IRRI leading to the establishment of the WIRFSprogram in 1986. How and why this program has beensuccessful will be discussed in Section 6. The conferencemonograph, Women in Rice Farming (IRRI, 1985), set an ex-ample for national and international agricultural researchinstitutions to begin exploring the relationship between spe-cific production systems and women farmers. Conferenceparticipants also made three recommendations to the CGIARsystem:

1. The CGIAR should organize an inter-center seminarfor Policymakers on Women in Farming SystemsImprovement based on the work in all IARCs. AllCGIAR members could be invited to participate so thatdonors can contribute to the action research projectsof the kind recommended.

2. The TAC.. .should add the following to the Terms ofReference and Guidelines for external program re-views of the IARCs: "Examine the research andtraining programs of the institute in relation to theirpotential impact on women-specific occupations witha view to diversifying employment opportunities,generating additional income, and reducing drudg-ery."

3. Centers themselves could monitor progress duringtheir annual program reviews.

These recommendations contributed to the system deci-sion to explore the gender question. At its November 1983ICW annual meeting, following the IRRI conference, the CGIARcommissioned a wide-ranging impact study of the results ofthe activities of the IARCs under its sponsorship. At that timethe Impact Study leaders and Advisory Committee recognizedthe need for a separate study on gender issues. Conducted byJanice Jiggins in 1984 and 1985, the study produced a series of

14 sector-specific papers (on livestock, breeding, post-harvest

.... .o .xES.. :. 5. v .. ..... .. EE .lg E.E g

issues, etc.) that were later compiled into a single volume,Gender-Related Impacts and the Work of the InternationalAgricultural Research Centers (1986).

While the Impact Study was still underway, two con-ferences brought CGIAR centers and gender issues together. In1984, the Rockefeller Foundation hosted a conference entitled"Understanding Africa's Rural Households and FarmingSystems" (Moock, 1986). Though focused on one specificregion and not targeted to the entire CGIAR system, participantsincluded a number of IARC representatives and CGIAR donors.The conference attempted to reconcile the divergent meth-odological and conceptual issues between FSRE as it wasbeing conducted at the time and the body of householdresearch conducted largely by social scientists. Progress wasmade in the exchange of ideas, experiences, and methods.However, more than one participant characterized the con-ference as two bodies of researchers speaking past each other.

At the time FSRE practitioners were still reluctant toacknowledge the need for a gender disaggregated understandingof the African household, and social science researchersexamining the African household were not generating thekinds of analyses that could lead easily to technical decisionmaking. It was obvious that more communication between thetwo groups would be necessary to arrive at a cohesive analyticalframework.

In March 1985, the ISNAR and the Rockefeller Foundationc.o-sponsored a week-long, inter-center seminar in Bellagio,Italy on "Women and Agricultural Technology: The Users'Perspective in International Agricultural Research"(Rockefeller/ISNAR 1985, Vols. .and II). The meeting objectiveswere to assess centers' activities related to a more effectiveintegration of women in the modernization of agriculture, andto seek ways to improve CGIAR system performance on thisissue.

The seminar is a benchmark for the CGIAR system onuser perspectives and gender issues. The papers prepared forthe seminar summarized the experiences, shortcomings, andsuccess stories of women and agricultural technology, and 15

outlined what would be needed to conduct gender-awareresearch. On the positive side, six of the IARCs provided fairlyclear evidence of analytical, application of gender issues toproblems of technology development. Several centers gaveexamples of specific technology changes to suit the needs ofwomen users. Some of the reports were less positive.

Three IARC reports dealt with gender issues mostly interms of including more women in training programs, andprovided little more than token evidence of gender analysis intheir research programs. Two of the center reports are notablefor not mentioning women or gender issues at all. Finally, onereport presented a negative view of women's roles in productionand misinterpreted existing data on gender issues from theregion of the center's responsibility.

The conference confirmed that several centers werealready engaged in gender-sensitive research on some topicsand were taking steps to ensure that gender analysis would beincluded in other areas of responsibility. The concludingparticipants' statements affirmed several key points6 on therelevance of women's and gender issues to research:

1. that gender is an important variable in distinguishingamong potential beneficiary groups for agriculturaltechnology research and policy analysis;

2. that female farmers do not form a homogeneous groupfor development purposes and gender and other vari-ables need to be considered in defining categories ofpeople for research and development activities;

3. that choice of technological approach is based onmore than the production process itself; it is based onthe food and economic context of the household andwomen play an active part in that choice;

"These issues are drawn directly from the Concluding Statement of thereport prepared on the seminar (Rockefeller/ISNAR, 1985, Vol.I) and from aninterview with Josette Murphy, then with ISNAR, conducted following the

16 seminar and reported in CGIAR News Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1985.

4. that the economic contribution of women to thehousehold can be disrupted and disadvantaged by theintroduction of well-intentioned technological change,particularly when biased toward male heads of house-holds; and

5. that women are crucial repositories of information onplant and animal species as well as on technicalaspects of production, and useful insights are lostwhen women are ignored.

The seminar confirmed the need for complementaritybetween IARCs and national programs in addressing genderissues and women's participation in the technology devel-opment process. Characterizing the relationship as a teameffort requiring more two-way flow of information, the seminarparticipants called for:

1. increased, systematic use of information and coop-eration in raising awareness of gender issues at na-tional and international program levels;

2. development of a long-term strategy to considerwomen in all phases of research and development;

3. greater collaboration and recognition of com-plementarity among the IARCs, especially betweenthe commodity centers and IFPRI and ISNAR; and

4. inclusion of gender issues in the evaluation of theimpact of IARC work at the national systems level.

Finally, the concluding seminar statement contained thefollowing suggestions for the CGIAR system:

1. gender issues must be linked to the entire technologygeneration process;

2. IARCs should collaborate with national organizationsin generating information and methodologies dealingwith gender issues; 17

3. interdisciplinary teams of scientists should identifyspecific areas in which gender makes a difference tothe effectiveness and efficiency of IARC work;

4. inter-center exchanges need to be organized amongnatural and social scientists to discuss specific issuesin incorporating gender into research plans and pro-cedures;

5. high-quality studies on the experiences of, and meth-odologies for, incorporating gender issues should becommissioned and widely disseminated; and

6.IARCs and national programs should offer moretraining opportunities for women, should find waysto increase the number of female extension workers toreach farm women, and should pay specific attentionto gender factors in on-farm research.

Taken together, the seminar statements - affirming theneed for understanding gender issues, calling for collaborationbetween international and national research entities, andlaying out specific suggestions for the CGIAR system -represent a positive step toward gender sensitivity for theentire system. In effect, the conference "signaled the begin-ning of a system-wide dialogue on the subject of women andagricultural development" (CGIAR News, 1985).

However, two critical elements were left off the agenda.

First, no mechanism was developed to ensure that thesystem would follow the seminar suggestions. Instead, asJosette Murphy explains, "It was left to each center to decideexactly what it needs to do under its mandate and how itshould go about doing it. Reporting and other administrativerequirements were not included to avoid artificial isolation ofthe issue" (CGIAR News, 1985). While the argument for notisolating gender issues is valid, the lack of system-widemechanisms to require, evaluate and monitor progress in thisarea has contributed to the great unevenness in center atten-tion to gender issues. To a large extent, those centers that

18 were already beginning to deal with gender issues, at least in

some program areas, have continued to do so, provided thatthe people who had the capacity to direct and conduct thework have remained at the centers. Only one center, IRRI, hasdeveloped an explicit gender issues program. Those centerswhere the issues were weak or misdirected in 1985 have, withfew exceptions, continued in the same fashion.

Second, no consideration was given to how centerswould train their scientific and management staff to be able toincorporate gender issues. Those present at the seminarrepresented only a tiny percentage of CGIAR system staff, andthey could be characterized as being 'the already converted'.How would larger numbers of scientists, managers andpolicymakers be sensitized to gender issues? Where wouldthey learn the skills and methods to be able to incorporategender concerns into their work?

Overlooking these two questions has meant that whilethe system has called for attention to the issues, only thecommitted few have taken and continue to take action. Untilthese areas are addressed, gender issues will not become partof the most critical task of the CGIAR system - the technologygeneration process.

Following the Bellagio seminar, many IARC scientistscommunicated results of gender-related research in severalinternational meetings. To some extent the Bellagio seminarmay have at last validated the topic as legitimate for discus-sion outside the centers, if not within. Papers by centerscientists were included at the 1986 Conference at the Uni-versity of Florida on Gender Issues and Farming SystemsResearch and Extension (Poats et al., 1988), at several AWIDmeetings, and at the annual Farming Systems Research andExtension Symposium.

In 1986, Janice Jiggins' CGIAR report on gender-relatedimpact was published. It added numerous examples in whichtaking gender into account made a difference in the devel-opment and adoption of technology. She reiterated many ofthe concerns and suggestions from the previous Bellagioconference with two important additions. First, she called forexplicit attention to the links between varietal characteristics, 19

production, and domestic processing. In arguing for earlyattention to preservation and preparation technologies, sheidentified these areas as largely a female domain and one thatis normally excluded from all but a few IARC programs.Second, she highlighted the lack of understanding of multi-purpose uses for much of the biomass produced by ruralhouseholds. Defining research objectives in terms of singleuses for crop or livestock products can keep users, who arefrequently women, from benefitting from other traditionalproducts made from these same commodities.

Jiggins' report has been widely circulated and citedamong the international community of researchers and devel-opment workers addressing gender issues. The increasing callfor further discussion and action on gender issues and analysisled the CGIAR Secretariat to organize a half-day specialseminar on "Gender Issues: User Impact, Agricultural Tech-nology and the Global Agricultural Research System" at the1987 ICW. While the 1983 IRRI conference and the 1985Bellagio seminar brought together a range of CGIAR systemleaders and specialists on gender issues, the 1987 ICW semi-nar was the first time since 1982 that the entire system -donors, Centers, Secretariat and TAC - discussed the ques-tion of gender and agricultural technology.

V. The 1987 CGIAR ICW Seminar: Summary andRecommendations on Gender Issues

The focus of the 1987 ICW seminar was the need tounderstand the potential impact of agricultural technology ondisadvantaged user groups, particularly women. The threethemes addressed were how the research process can bringuser implications to bear in technology choice, what therespective roles of national research systems and interna-tional centers are in incorporating user considerations intotechnology design, and how far the centers have progressed inachieving gender balance and incorporating it into research

20 and training activities.

After the seminar the CGIAR Secretariat summarized thediscussion recommendations as follows:

1. that the centers play a role in bringing processes andmethods to national systems which allow decisionson research emphasis and technology choice to bemade keeping in mind the needs of, and potentialimpact on, user groups;

2. that the CGIAR receive, on a routine basis, informa-tion on progress in this area, and in the balancing ofgenders at the centers themselves; and

3. that external reviews of centers include gender as anexplicit issue in the questions asked of them, and intheir reports.

Other issues were discussed at the seminar as well. Forexample, saying it was necessary to target "the actual actors inthe process," CIDA's Margaret Catley-Carlson outlined threeessential elements to effect institutional adoption of a genderperspective. They are a clear, agency-wide policy mandatingattention to gender as a development variable, a plan createdfrom the bottom up for implementing the policy, and trainingfor all staff, starting at the top.

All the presenters highlighted the need to incorporateuser considerations in technology development, and the es-sential inclusion of gender analysis in determiningusergroups.Including a gender user perspective raised other concerns,however. Given that user group patterns and needs arelocation-specific, how can the IARCs, with a mandate todevelop technology for a broad range of users, orient researchoutput and research program planning to a group with suchdiffering needs?

Concerning this question, Bob Herdt of the RockefellerFoundation emphasized that the IARCs' key role is to provideleadership and training to develop appropriate analyticalmethods to address user concems. These methods must beoriented to identifying innovative technologies that will have 21

a positive impact on the groups that are the ultimate CGIARsystem clients: women, the poor, and the disadvantaged.

Opponents of the user perspective and of the concern forgender issues often argue that the IARCs' role is to generatetechnologies that are useful to many nations. These are thenadapted for local users by national programs. While theboundary between what is IARC work and what is NARS workis often fuzzy, the seminar discussion highlighted the im-portance of feedback to identify user-relevant priorities forresearch. Technology developed without considering userneeds is not likely to be adopted.

On-farm, client-oriented, or farming systems researchwithin the IARCs will continue to have the greatest respon-sibility for the user perspective in research. However, to carrythis out effectively FSR must increasingly emphasize a feed-back role in research priority-setting and strategy-building.Most importantly, FSR will have to incorporate methods toaccount for the gender and intrahousehold differences intechnology impact.

The experiences discussed in the seminar confirmedthat it is preferable that efforts to rectify the gender imbalancein agricultural research be incorporated into mainstreamefforts rather than to have the status of special women'sprojects, which might further isolate the problem and solution.

Patel's presentation on adaptive research and genderissues in Zambia brought out the critical issue of the rapidlygrowing number of female-headed households due to maleoutmigration, a phenomenon occurring at a rapid rate in alldeveloping countries. The growing feminization of agricul-ture, especially food crop production, will have profoundimplications on the definitions of user needs for research andonthe ability and resources of poorer farmers and householdsto adopt improved technology. Gender-sensitive analysis willneed to play an even stronger role in determining the differ-ences among women farmers as well as among male andfemale farmers. Given the CGIAR system mandate to increasethe amount, quality, and stability of food supplies for poor

2 2 people in low-income countries, the centers must deal with

R... ........... .. .g... gR.:.R R ' g ' g

the fact that unless the trends are quickly and drasticallyaltered, the majority of their clients in the near future will bewomen.

Though most of the seminar discussion focused ontechnology users, a parallel theme addressed gender im-balances among the designers and managers of the technologyinnovation process: the researchers, staff, management, andcenter boards. In the final seminar presentation CIP directorgeneral Richard Sawyer underscored the need to increase thenumber of women professionals in the CGIAR system. Hepointed to the lack of women in the centers themselves, on theboards, and within and the CGIAR Secretariat. Using CIP asan example, he recommended that other centers activelyrecruit women professionals without sacrificing quality forequity. However, he warned against getting too involved withthe internal politics of national programs in trying to balancegender inequities among IARCs training courses participants.

While the attention of the IARCs and the entire agricul-tural research establishment to the gender issue is long over-due, the seminar discussion revealed another problem. Gen-der refers to men and women, not just women. The use ofgender analysis is not gender-specific. Male and femaleresearchers can be equally proficient at gender analysis.Likewise, a woman researcher trained in a narrow technicaldiscipline can be as gender-blind as a male trained in the sameprofession. Both need training in the skills of gender analysisto become proficient and effective in applying it to their work.Therefore, hiring more women scientists will not rectify agender bias in the technology generation process unless theyare trained in gender analysis techniques.

Gender has surfaced at least twice more among thecenters since the 1987 ICW. Once was during the CIP Inter-national Agricultural Research Centers "Workshop on HumanResource Development Through Training," in Lima, Peru, inSeptember 1988. A second time was at the 1989 ICW. Par-ticipants called for a report on the progress made since the1987 ICW seminar on the incorporation of gender and userissues by the centers. This paper is a first response to thatrequest. 23

VI. Strategies for Gender Issues: Examplesfrom the System

Obviously there is no lack of recommendations to guidethe CGIAR system in dealing with gender issues. However, asmentioned, implementation of the recommendations is un-even among the 13 centers. Based upon interviews withpeople working within the system and others who work withthe centers, and upon system documents such as annualreports, project reports, planning documents, and externalprogram and management reviews, the centers can be dividedinto three categories.

The first category comprises those centers with a clearmandate or policy on gender issues, an operating researchprogram that has a focus on gender, training in gender analy-sis, and a commitment to a gender balance among staff andtrainees. The only center in this category is IRRI.

The second category consists of centers where indi-vidual scientists have worked either directly on gender issuesor have incorporated gender analysis into ongoing research.These centers do not have a clear policy on gender, and thework that has been done on gender, even when recognizedinternationally, appears to have a limited audience within thecenter. In some instances such work is mentioned briefly inannual reports, but in most cases the results remain at theprojects and programs level and do not inform the centerefforts as a whole. The centers falling into this category areCIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, IFPRI, IITA, and WARDA.

The final category includes centers where there was verylittle attention to, or mention of, gender or women in thedocuments reviewed. Some of the centers did not mentionthese subjects at all in any of the documents reviewed. Othersmention them briefly in project-related reports but do notmention them at all in annual reports or strategic plans. Thisgroup includes IBPGR, ICRISAT, ILCA, ILRAD, and ISNAR.

A number of strategies from the first two groups can beidentified that would be useful to the other centers. Three arediscussed here. Of these, considerable attention is given to

24 IRRI due to the length and depth of its experience.

IRRI

The most succinct statement on IRRI's position regardingwomen and gender issues is found in "IRRI Toward 2000 andBeyond" (1989). Of the five IRRI policies laid out in thedocument to guide the institution's future, the fourth is statedas "women and rice." The brief policy summary states:"Affirmative action will be taken in recruitment, in selectionof candidates for training and in research design to address theroles of women in IRRI itself, in national rice programs, and asusers and beneficiaries of rice technology" (p. 23).

An expanded version of the policy provides some ad-ditional information about the program and its results:

The role of women in rice research and ricefarming has both efficiency and equity implications.IRRI has been sensitive to this issue for many years.Some progress has been made in regard to womenin IRRIitself, in national rice programs, and as usersand beneficiaries of rice technology, but muchremains to be done.

We recognize and uphold the principle ofaffirmative action in the recruitment of all staff atIRRI. We will intensify our efforts to recruit quali-fled women scientists and administrators. We alsoaim to increase the proportion of women in IRRIgraduate and postdoctoral fellow programs andshort-term training programs.

We will continue to promote the integrationof women's concerns into all research projects inIRRI and in national programs. Specifically, genderanalysis will permit recognition of the contributionof women to rice production, marketing, and con-sumption; technologies that reduce the burden onwomen without displacing their income-earningcapacity will be developed, and research on riceprocessing will aim at conserving the level of essen-tial nutrients. These activities will help us to focus 25

more sharply on the whole family as the ultimatebeneficiary of rice research.

The cornerstone of IRRI's focus on women and genderissues is the WIRFS program. WIRFS traces its history toIRRI's 1983 Women in Rice Farming conference. In additionto the recommendations made by the conference to the system(mentioned earlier), participants also called for IRRI to orga-nize a network on women and rice farming systems for theAsian region. In 1984, Jennie Dey (currently with FAO), anexpert on women and rice production, was funded by the FordFoundation to laythe groundwork for such a network involvingBangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, andThailand.

Following the Bellagio Conference on Women and Ag-ricultural Technology, IRRI took steps to implement the rec-ommendation to develop a long-term strategy for involvingwomen in all phases of research and technology development.In 1985, IRRI held a project design workshop to create WIRFS.Leadership for the first year was provided by noted Universityof the Philippines scholar Gelia Castillo, who was alreadyserving on the boards of several centers. She coordinatedWIRFS activities at IRRI in the Philippines and within countrymembers of the Asian network for rice farming systems. In1986, WIRFS began research within one of IRRI's crop-live-stock projects (Paris, 1988). This work demonstrated to IRRIscientists and management that introducing a gender per-spective made a difference in research priorities and directions,as well as in identifying new topics such as glutinous ricepreparation, an area that previously had not been a subject ofIRRI research.

On the basis of the early results of WIRFS initiatives, the1987 IRRI External Program Review recommended strength-ening WIRFS' work at the Institute. This recommendationwas endorsed by TAC. As a result IRRI obtained funding fromthe Ford Foundation for expanding WIRFS activities at IRRIand within the network. As of June 1990, WIRFS had spon-sored more than 26 research projects. During 1988 and 1989,it organized 11 workshops and training courses at national

26 and international levels. Funding has been obtained for many

WIRFS activities from a number of other donors includingCIDA, DANIDA, IDRC, USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation,and several universities in the region. Between 1986 and1989, WIRFS members delivered over 87 papers or presenta-tions on their work at national and international conferencesand workshops.

WIRFS' impressive record is not duplicated at any othercenter. Nor did any other center have a policy statement onwomen and gender issues when this paper was written.

A number of critical factors have enabled IRRI to developsuch a policy and, more importantly, to gain the necessaryconsensus for approval among center staff and management,as well as among the participating national programs andgovernments. These factors are:

1. International legitimization for a focus on womenand the use of gender analysis. The internationalconferences and external/international advisorshave provided legitimacy and respect for WIRFS'effort in the eyes of the other IRRI members.Donor funding has also assisted in legitimizingthe effort.

2. Sustained experienced WIRFS leadership. Theindividuals leading the program have beenqualified social science researchers with experi-ence and training in gender analysis. They havebeen able to provide both scientific and manage-rial leadership.

3. Support and protection from IRRI top manage-ment. It is no coincidence that WIRFS devel-oped during IRRI's leadership by Dr. M.S.Swaminathan. Long committed to both genderstaffing and gender analysis in research, Dr.Swaminathan provided the young WIRFS withguidance, as well as insulation during the time itneeded to become established. The critical roleof such 'guardian angels' during efforts to insti-tutionalize new approaches is recognized in 27

Rgf.......S........ . . *YSR:ff:S:.S.:S..a.:: ...BRSRB:.:f.....*Ss :. . ..::::::>:S:.R::R : SR::.:RSS5::.::.:': f',:: :. : . :.f.. ..... . . f ......... : ... .. .......... .: g BRS S... . ........a g :

development literature and was key to the accep-tance of WIRFS by IRRI scientists.

4. External funding provided flexibility and au-tonomy. WIRFS has been successful in attract-ing sufficient funds from outside IRRI. This hasprovided the flexibility to try new approachesand new methods and to be responsive to ideasand interests from network members.

5. Substantial external exposure. WIRFS research-ers have participated in a number of internationalconferences and workshops, thus exposing theprogram to the critical eyes of peers and enhanc-ing the intellectual and methodological innova-tion needed to keep the program fresh and ontarget.

6. Strong national involvement in the programthrough networking and training. WIRFS hasfocused not only on research but has been devel-oped around the concept of a collaborative re-search network. Rather than creating a newnetwork, WIRFS took advantage of the existingIRRI-supported network on Asian rice farmingsystems and drew participants from it.

7. Assessment of WIRFS as part of institute-levelevaluations. WIRFS has been included in theregular program and management evaluationsconducted by the CGIAR and TAC. Positiveassessments of WIRFS have strengthened theprogram and have helped maintain funding.

8. WIRFS research results show that gender makesa difference. This is perhaps the most importantfactor favoring WIRFS' potential for making animpact on IRRI. Explicit, well-defined examplesof changes within projects in priorities, testing,technology design, and new research directions

28 have resulted from WIRFS.

These factors have enabled the program to get started andto begin to make a difference to some of IRRI's work. In March1990, the WIRFS program was reviewed for IRRI and the FordFoundation by outside consultants. Several critical issueswere discussed in their report.

The report was extremely positive on the impact WIRFShas had in training national level scientists in gender analysisas it applies to agricultural research. The report raised thequestion of the future of WIRFS leadership because one of itsleaders was departing, and because the program functionedlargely as a special project focused on women.

Under Swaminathan, junior scientists at IRRI, many ofwhom are from the Philippines, were given significant re-sponsibilities, including the ability to travel outside theinstitute to participate in regional and international activities.This is unusual among the centers. The prime 'mover' for theprogram during the past three years has been a Philippinewoman with an M.S. degree. Though a junior staff member, inthe eyes of WIRFS collaborators she has represented andspoken for IRRI. However, because she is a junior staffmember, within IRRI she is less able to influence seniorscientists from other programs.

WIRFS has used a substantial number of Philippinewomen scientists to conduct WIRFS activities. With thedeparture inJune 1990 ofthe senior scientist who coordinatedthe program, the junior scientist has continued to provideleadership and has conducted training programs throughoutthe region. The Ford Foundation continues to support themethodology development and training activities. Recently,the farming systems trainer moved to a senior position in theTraining Division. She has integrated gender issues throughoutboth the farming systems and training of trainers courses andhas worked with the WIRFS program in designing and con-ducting gender analysis training in the national programs.IRRI has supported both these efforts.

Until mid-1990 the program functioned as a specialproject focused on women. That is, while gender analysis wasused, the program operated through special projects and 29

:.' . .... 5 ::.......... . :: '5f:: 5 : 5 .:.: : . . ' ..:.. ; . wf:... f. ::.:.. ::. :.:.... ... : .f: .:.:...f:::::'.: :f: f-:::. ::.: :.-: :f:::ff: :.'::: -ff.

teams that were composed largely of women scientists. InJune 1990, a WIRFS conference held at Puncak, Indonesiashifted the focus of the program from being one for womenscientists to being one which integrated the concepts intomainstream farming systems work in the national programs.Program leaders from Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines,Nepal, Bangladesh, and India called upon IRRI to continue toprovide assistance in training their scientists in the genderanalysis methodology.

WIRFS has successfully captured the 'converted' withinand around IRRI and has strengthened the basic foundationsof experience and results. The task of bringing IRRI's'unconverted' scientists working in the mainstream into 'agender way of thinking' has just begun. IRRI is seeking atechnical scientist with gender expertise to provide additionalleadership for IRRI's internal research program. In 1990, IRRIacknowledged the junior scientist's achievements by presentingher its annual award for major contributions to science.

CIMMYT

Until 1989 it was difficult to find any mention of genderor of womenin CIMMYT annual reports or strategy documents.However, CIMMYT's 1989 strategy statement, "Toward the21st Century," includes a section entitled, "Perspectives onWomen in Agriculture." In it CIMMYT recognizes the im-portant role women play in agriculture and the necessity toidentify the technical needs of women farmers. The sectionalso underlines the need to emphasize women's roles inproduction within CIMMYT's training programs and the needto include more female participants in training courses.CIMMYT's growing attention to gender issues is due largely tothe results of gender-sensitive work conducted at various fieldsites.

In an internal CIMMYT study on the impact of the centeron women, Carney (1988) notes that "the principal manner inwhich CIMMYT has directed assistance to women in devel-oping countries is through its work in on-farm research,

30 known as on-farm research with a farming systems perspec-

F4+.+.+..~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ..... .... + . . ........... sE

tive (OFR/FSP)." Within its OFR activities CIMMYT hasreached women farmers by developing methods for sensitiz-ing researchers to the needs and circumstances of a targetgroup of farmers, and through workshops and training pro-grams on the effective use of the methods. The key OFR con-cept directly relating to women farmers is the 'recommenda-tion domain', which is a "homogeneous group of farmers whoshare the same problems and possess similar resources forsolving these problems" (Low cited in Carney, 1988).

When applied correctly, the recommendation domainconcept has the potential to identify production problems forwomen and men farmers and to engage women in on-farmresearch to solve these problems. The difficulty is that toooften the method is not applied in a sufficiently unbiasedmanner, and recommendation domains are delineated ac-cording to the problems shared by male farmers, not allfarmers. However, the concept has great potential to facilitatethe involvement of women farmers in technology development.

A second example comes from CIMMYT activities inAfrica. CIMMYT's Eastern and Southern Africa EconomicsProgram operates explicitly from an on-farm research per-spective and has taken the lead in the region for providingtraining and national capacity building in adaptive research.Since 1987 the CIMMYT program has taken steps to applygender analysis to agricultural research. In April 1987, itsponsored a "Networkshop on Household Issues and FarmingSystems Research." The workshop included the presentationof a case study incorporating gender analysis (Chabala andGichira, 1990), papers by participants on the application ofintrahousehold analysis to trial design, farmer selection, trialanalysis, and a general discussion of methodologies andissues related to the application of intrahousehold or genderanalysis to on-farm research (Sutherland, 1987).

In 1989 and 1990, resource people with expertise in theapplication of gender analysis to agricultural research wereincluded in Part 1 of CIMMYT's annual basic training coursein on-farm research held at the University of Zimbabwe.Participants are generally agronomists or agricultural econo-mists from national systems who have not had formal OFR 31

training. The course is divided into two parts. Part 1 coversdiagnosis and informal and formal surveys. Part 2 covers trialdesign and evaluation.

This kind of effort is a good beginning, but still leavesgender analysis more or less an add-on rather than an integralpart of training. Gender as a useful and important variableneeds to be incorporated throughout lectures, field exercises,and field reports.

One area which needs to be addressed more closely infuture courses is how to learn about women and from women.Participants talked about the awkwardness of interviewingwomen either because husbands were unwilling to have theirwives interviewed alone or, when interviewed, women weredeferent in their husbands' presence. It was clearly a barrierto gathering gender disaggregated information on the pro-duction system, and therefore to adequate gender analysis.

Another example of a growing gender concern is high-lighted in CIMMYT's OFR work in Ghana. CIMMYT andGhanaian researchers have become aware of the unique de-cision-making role women play in technology choice.

A 1987 study on changing maize production practices inGhana showed that women adopt new technologies as fast orfaster than men (Tripp et al., 1987). But as Carney points out(Carney, 1988:4), the fact that women only represented 15percent of the study's sample, and of these only 5 percent grewmaize as a monocrop, has uncovered additional areas thatneed to be researched. In fact, the team has begun severalinteresting new initiatives as a result of this information. Forexample, work is being conducted on mixed cropping systemsfor maize because women farmers nearly always plant maizewith other crops, such as cassava, and have been uninterestedin the monocrop technology developed by the project andadopted largely by male farmers.

The project staff in Ghana have recognized that thegender of the research teams - all male - makes it difficultfor women farmers to interact or collaborate in OFR work.

32 Therefore, they are collaborating with a new Ghanaian reor-

... : : ::..............

ganization that has taken existing home economics extensionagents - all female - and restructured them as the WomenFarmers Extension Service. The CIMMYT project is providingOFR training to a large group of these new agricultural agentsand intends to place them on field teams, like male extensionworkers, with the objective of collaborating more with womenfarmers. It is probably significant that the donor for thisproject is CIDA and that CIDA's project officers are insistingthat its mandate regarding the incorporation of gender issuesbe followed in the Ghana program. However, it was evidentfrom discussions with CIMMYT scientists in Ghana that theyare strongly supportive of gender issues and that their keyconcern is to learn appropriate methods for including genderissues in the research process as well as including women inthe on-farm trials.

These experiences from CIMMYT's on-farm researchprogram are good examples of how gender issues can beincluded and can make a difference in both training and fieldwork. One can argue that at selected field and project sitesCIMMYT's research is being influenced by the results ofgender analysis. However, as indicated in CIMMYT's strategystatement, concern for gender issues is confined largely to on-farm research activities and the Economics Program. As theEconomics Program moves away from adaptive OFR towardapplied and strategic research, it will be important to continueto incorporate gender analysis within the new research initia-tives. Consideration of gender issues should be included inboth the wheat and maize programs as well.

CIAT

Jackie Ashby's important pioneering efforts to develop auser orientation for research and participatory researchmethods at CIAT have already been discussed in this paperand are well-documented (Ashby, 1990,1987). It is significantthat Ashby's work has been supported mostly by externalfunding. While this has provided a great deal of flexibility, ithas also contributed to the special project status of her re-search and to the difficulty of influencing other CIAT scien- 3

tists withthe results of gender-sensitive research. No mentionis made of the research in the last two center annual reports.

The strategy document, "CIAT in the 1990s," contains astatement that bean production in Africa is done by smallfarmers, mostly women, and is predominantly subsistence innature (CIAT, 1989b). Unfortunately, there is no mention ofwhether this fact requires any changes in agenda or in methodsof reaching farmers. No other program mentions gender orwomen.

Despite the failure to mention gender or women at higherlevels of management, in the bean program, and to a lesserextent in the cassava program, there is increasing attention toand use of gender analysis. Breeding work on beans atheadquarters has been significantly affected by Ashby's workin Colombia that has identified gender-differentiated anduser-defined criteria for bean selection.

Within the Bean Program's Great Lakes Program inEastern Africa two anthropologists have focused on women'sneeds in bean development. Joachim Voss, the first anthro-pologist with the team based in Rwanda, illuminated the factthat the majority, if not all, of the bean producers in theprogram's region were women. If they did not focus on womenthey would miss the farmers entirely.

Louise Sperling (1989), the team anthropologist, hasbuilt upon Voss's work and CIAT experiences in farmerparticipatory research and has designed an innovative strat-egy to bring farmers' criteria for bean variety selection into thebreeding process at an early stage. Working with bean breedersand farmer communities, 'expert seed selectors' were chosenby their neighbors and brought to the experiment station.There they were exposed to the 'logic' of bean selection on-station, while providing information on their own selectionprocedures on-farm.

Over time the selectors, all women, have become aregular part of the bean selection process. The result is thatdecades of farmers' experience is being incorporated into the

34 selection of new bean varieties. Scientists, for their part, are

altering field trial arrangements to facilitate farmer under-standing and involvement in selection procedures. As aresult, there is a higher probability that the varieties to bereleased will prove acceptable to the farmers they are intendedto help. As Sperling says, "Farmer knowledge, combined withbreeder talents, has a chance to produce something better thaneach expert's isolated efforts." Additionally, Rwandan andCIAT scientists, long conditioned not to view rural women asthinkers or decision makers, are gaining a new perspective onwomen farmers who can match the breeders at their owngame on their own turf.

These CIAT examples demonstrate the value of userperspectives and gender sensitivity in the research program.However, the impact of the understanding derived fromattention to gender remains at the field activities level anddoes not filter either up the system or to other center pro-grams. This problem is not limited to gender analysis resultsbut is true for much of the socioeconomic research at CIATand at the other IARCs.

VII. Why the Gender Question is so Difficult

It is clear that it has been difficult for the CGIAR systemto address gender issues. While inroads have been made,many researchers who support gender analysis feel they havenot succeeded in convincing other colleagues of its usefulness.Generally, the centers' research agendas have been little in-formed or influenced by gender issues research. While somedifficulties are center-specific, others are common to thesystem and create a barrier to gender sensitivity and analysis.These latter issues are discussed in this section.

1. Confusion between gender analysis and gender staffing.

There is a general misunderstanding of the differencebetween gender analysis and gender staffing. Gender analysisis aimed at greater efficiency in production through the use ofanalytical tools designed to better define who does what in theproduction system, and to align research and developmentpriorities, resources, and user participation accordingly. Gen- 35

der analysis is not gender-specific and can and should be doneby both men and women. The use of gender analysis as partof agricultural research results in a gender-sensitive approachto development.

Gender staffing, on the other hand, refers to the staffingof agricultural research entities and to revising the over-whelmingly male structure to involve equitable numbers ofmen and women at all levels. Training programs use genderstaffing to assure that men and women have equal access andparticipation.

Though gender-sensitive research and development andgender staffing are related, they are not equivalent. Womenare not gender experts just because of their sex. Like any otherskill, gender analysis is learned. Within many IARCs, how-ever, managers have confused the two issues and have assumedthat hiring a few more women scientists will solve the genderissue problem. While the presence of more women profes-sionals at all system levels may influence some researchers to'see' more women farmers and decision makers in the ruralsector, it does not guarantee the use of gender analysis.Managers must clarify, separate, and manage them as twoissues.

2. Good gender analysis requires experienced social scientists.

Gender is a social construct and gender analysis drawson social science tools, especially from anthropology, sociol-ogy, geography, and economics. There are relatively fewsocial scientists in the CGIAR system. Those that are there arenot uniformly trained or equipped to do this type of work. Inaddition, the disciplinary bias of the socioeconomics divi-sions within the system is toward agricultural economics.Agricultural economics training does not generally addressgender issues, nor does it provide training in gender analysismethodologies. In fact, the predominance of agriculturaleconomists in the centers, and especially in on-farm researchteams, probably contributes to gender blindness. This occursthrough reliance on traditional household models that assumethat a farm household functions as a single unit for production

36 and consumption, that a consensus exists among household

members on the allocation of resources and benefits, and thatall household members' interests and problems are identical(Cloud, 1988).

To alleviate this problem managers can include gender-experienced scientists from the other social sciences. Thiswould expand the analytical and methodological base of thesocial sciences in the centers and provide the capability toconduct gender analysis. Alternatively, training existing staffand backstoppingthem with experienced professionals wouldbe another solution to enhancing gender analysis capacity.Pooling analytical resources among international and nationalresearch institutions is another route to enhancing capabili-ties.

A key tool for enhancing a gender perspective is incor-poration of a gender analysis framework in research. Onereason why gender analysis frameworks are useful to agri-cultural researchers is that they pose a set of questions thatshould be asked at every decision point in the researchprocess. The questions-who does what with what re-sources, who has access to or control of the resources andb[enefits, and who should be included in research activities -are always the same; the answers vary. Analysis of theinformation generated by the questions becomes part of theoverall analysis of the production or food system. Practicewith a gender analysis framework will make it a normal partof the inquiry process.

3. Lack of contact between scientists and women farmers.

IARC scientists generally have little contact withwomen farmers. Even within FSR or on-farm research pro-grams it is rare to find consistent or extensive contact withthem. Therefore, little knowledge and understanding isgained about the differences that might occur between malesa nd females practicing agriculture in the same zone. AnISNAR study (Biggs, 1989) pointed out that the selection offarmer cooperators is the weakest methodological aspect offarmer participation. More often than not farmers are selectedfor convenience, not for representativeness. They tend to bewealthier and commercially oriented. They often have little ..

~A. .*. ..S........ .......

in common with women farmers in the same area. Poorimplementation of the methods of farmer selection preventsadequate inclusion of women farmers and exacerbates thelack of contact with scientists despite the growing use of on-farm research approaches.

Ensuring representativeness in the selection of farmersas collaborators in the research process will lead to a rationalinclusion of women farmers.

4. Geographic location of IARC headquarters influences sci-entists' gender sensitivity.

When a center is headquartered in an area where womeneither historically have had a smaller role in the production ofthe commodities within the center's mandate, or where womenare believed to play a small role in agriculture, the beliefs andunderstanding of the center staff concerning gender roles inproduction are greatly influenced by the immediate sur-roundings. For example, the location of IITA in a region ofNigeria where women traditionally have not been very involvedin production activities has created or reinforced the beliefthat women are not involved in agriculture (Goldman, 1990).

Likewise, CIMMYT's location in an area of Mexicowhere men historically have taken major responsibility forfield tasks in agriculture has contributed to a similar bias.Garney (1990) explains that in Mexico women are becomingmajor decision makers in malze and wheat production. In thepast, they were not. Even though migration to the U.S. on aseasonal basis wasy always an economic strategy used by men'to augment household income,they were able to be at home toperform the major agricultural tasks. Now that seasonalmigration is illegal, men can no longer return to perform thesetasks and women must bear the burden of the agriculturalwork. Usually they use the tmen's remittances to purchaselabor in the form of mechanization. Bound by their beliefs inthe system the way it was, the research community has notperceived these changes inthe production system or questionedwhether it makes a difference. In the definition of problemsand technology design the male is still considered head of the

38 household and key decision maker.

This kind of 'conventional wisdom' can blind people togender differences, even when they are confronted with themdirectly. In the Mexican situation above, if researchers firstasked who does what in the local production system, theywould discover the changes in gender roles brought on bylarger political and social changes. They could then adjustresearch directions and priorities accordingly. If they don'task the question they remain blinded by their beliefs in theway the system used to be, instead of seeing how it is.

5. Lack of senior scientist involvement in gender issues.

Research relating to gender issues is often done by juniorstaff - the post doctorals, junior scientists, research associ-ates, and research assistants. In addition, women have beenthe primary actors dealing with gender issues. Becausewomen generally work in more junior positions in the centers,the lack of senior status and involvement has created a type ofsecond- class standard for gender issues work. This has madeit difficult for those conducting gender analysis to make theirresults heard within the center and within the CGIAR system.Further, most of the attention to gender is given by socialscientists, who also generally have less status and senioritywithin agricultural research.

Not only does this blind the larger research effort togender analysis, but there is also a lack of guidance andmentoring for the scientists and researchers who do utilize it.While there are gender-sensitive male scientists within thesystem, few seem willing to be publicly vocal on the subject.Some simply lack experience in articulating gender issueswithin the agricultural research framework. Others perceivea social and even professional risk in standing up for genderissues among their peers. As long as the culture of the centersmakes it risky to support gender issues, effective incorpora-tion of gender analysis in research is unlikely.

The risk perceived in voicing gender concerns is linkedto the connection of gender issues to the social sciences and,in most cases, to on-farm research. The consideration ofgender in agricultural research is still not well-accepted.Resistance to doing research with direct farmer involvement 39

is still so strong that proponents often fear further to compli-cate the issue by adding the gender perspective. Thus, manyof the more gender-sensitive male scientists in the system arereluctant to push the issue since they are already fighting adifficult battle just to get any farmers involved in the processat all.

6. Gender viewed as the responsibility of the NARS, notthe IARCs.

As mentioned earlier, gender issues and analysis, andindeed any research directly involving farmers, is viewed bymany within the CGIAR system as the responsibility of NARS,not the IARCs. While it is true that the adaptive stage of theresearch process should be squarely in the domain of thenational programs, the technical results from strategic, andparticularly from applied, research cannot be generated inisolation from the realities of farmer production systems.There is a crucial need to maintain contact with farmers toassure relevancy. If this contact is lost or mediated onlythrough several layers of researchers, the technology releasedby the system may be inappropriate, or worse, totally useless.The balance of farmer and user contact necessary to researchdepends on the problem being addressed and on the skills ofthe people involved. Gender issues must be articulated informulating the research problem as well as in designing itssolution. Gender or other socioeconomic variables are irrel-evant to the solution of some problems. However, for themajority of problems facing disadvantaged farmers in devel-oping countries, the socioeconomic variables are an integralpart of the problem and cannot be overlooked.

A related factor is that the CGIAR centers are the sourceof research methodologies for many NARS researchers. Manylook to the centers for training and for the latest agriculturalresearch innovations. The absence of a gender perspectiveand sensitivity, and of gender-related methods of study in thetraining programs offered by the CGIAR system, perpetuatethe invisibility of women as a client group for NARS/IARC

40 technology.

7. Gender issues as a special project.

The few gender-related projects and programs that existare underfunded and/or rely on special funding. They tendnot to be core funded, which makes them vulnerable tofunding cutoffs. It also tends to isolate the issue as a 'specialtopic' rather than integrating the content and methodsthroughout the program. Special 'women's projects', likethose at IRRI and IITA, can sometimes backfire. They bringwomen into the system and often produce relevant researchresults as long as the special funds last. Often when thefunding or the project ends, there are no mechanisms in placeto assure continuity in funding or direction.

There needs to be far greater mainstreaming of effortsdealing with gender issues. Mainstreaming will also helplegitimize the efforts of scientists already working on thesubject.

8. Lack of mechanisms to implement gender staffing goals.

While correcting the current gender imbalance in staff-ing patterns and training courses of the CGIAR system will notautomatically achieve gender sensitivity, having more womenprofessionals in the system is a related concern and a statedgoal of many IARC directors. However, managers complainthat they do not get enough women applicants for staff posi-tions. Most agree with Richard Sawyer's comment at the 1987ICW seminar that it is important not to sacrifice quality infavor of balancing numbers. While this is true, it may be thatthe centers have not been diligent enough in their searches.The men who dominate centers staffs have contact in theprofessional world and in their disciplinary societies prima-rily with other men. Over time this may change. Increasingnumbers of women specializing in agricultural research withan international focus will increase the pool of females avail-able for future staffing. In addition, as more women move intothe system they will create increased interest by their pres-ence.

Managers face adifferent problem with respect to trainingat the centers. Much of the responsibility for selecting peoplefor training courses is in the hands of national program 41

leaders. Centers are reluctant to demand participants be of aparticular gender. However, criteria are set for other factorssuch as degree level, country representation, disciplinarybackground, and technical responsibilities. Training manag-ers should explore whether criteria for balancing male andfemale participants would really cause problems at the NARSlevel. It might require more time in negotiation and morediscussion about participants. To accomplish this training,managers could approach the issue with NARS leaders on aninformal basis. In other cases it may be useful to substitutefield experience for formal education in training coursesadmission requirements to allow greater access to technicaltraining even for women who have not had basic formaltraining due to discriminatory practices in the educationalsystem. In the short run, quotas or similar mechanisms maybe necessary. However, if regional IARC staff and collaborat-ing national program leaders can be sensitized to the issue, itis likely that targets for increasing women's participation intraining will be achieved.

Monitoring the CGIAR system's progress in includingwomen as staff and trainees was called for in recommenda-tions from the conferences summarized earlier. It is difficultto assess the degree of compliance with this request since mostof the centers' public documents still do not report any genderdisaggregated staffing or training information. However, inresponse to this recommendation, the CGIAR Secretariatmodified the terms of reference of the management reviews ofthe centers to highlight this issue.

Looking at four reviews concluded in early 1990, it isworthwhile analyzing the terms of reference for the reviewteams and the responses contained in their reports.

The 1989 CIP EMR posed a gender-specific question. Itwas contained in the list of questions in the managementreview terms of reference under human resources and asked:

#7. Does CIP actively promote recruitment, reten-tion and career development of women? Are there

42 barriers to women's advancement in the center?

Both the 1989 CIAT EPR and the 1989 CIAT EMR askedsimilar questions. The CIP response was:

CIP has around 138 women employees of whomfive are international scientists and a further fiveare postdoctorals. CIP has no quota for women anddoes not consciously monitor their number. CIPhas an admirable record in this area. CIP womenhave chaired the Board and its Program Committee,held regular staff posts and conducted specialprojects in remote areas. There are no discernibleobstacles to the advancement of women and, interms of selection and work opportunities, there isequality of opportunity (p. 48).

To test the validity of this assessment, the CIP profes-sional staff were disaggregated by gender using the stafflistings in the 1988 Annual Report, the same year as themanagement review (see below). As can be seen, amongsenior management women appear only on the Board. Thismeans that women are absent in day-to-day management andscientific leadership. Among the research scientists with aPh.D., only 8.5 percent were women (5 of 59). Among theother research scientists, 19 percent (4 of 21) were women.While these numbers have increased since 1983, they do notsubstantiate the EMR team assessment of "no discernibleobstacles" or "equality of opportunity". Among the scientificassistants, 35 percent are women, and in several departmentsthe number of women assistants is close to 50 percent. In twodepartments (social science and training/communications)the number of women was equal to men or greater. In termsof total numbers, however, there were 48 women (or 24%)and 149 men. These numbers differ from those quoted fromthe EMR. It seems likely that secretarial staff may have beenincluded in the total number of women staff EMR counted.

In the 1989 review document produced by the CIATprogram evaluation team, under the section "Target groupsand gender issues," no further mention of the word 'gender' 43

GENDER DISAGGREGATION OF THE CIP STAFF'

Leadership No. Women Total No.

Senior Management 0 8Board of Trustees (Prog. Comm.) 2 7Research Thrusts Leaders/Co-leaders 0 20Department Heads 0 7Regional Leaders 0 9

Total Leadership Positions 2 51(Included in Total Below)

(3.9%)

Scientific and Support Staff

Headquarters Research Scientists (PhD) 4 40Other Headquarters Research Scientists 2 9Regional Research Scientists (PhD) 1 19Other Regional Research Scientists 2 12Training and Communications 4 l1 PhD) 8 (4 PhD)Administration 2 10Scientific Associates 0 5

lTotal Research Scientists 15 103(14.5%)

Scientific and Other Assistants

BSreeding/Genetics 1 11Genetic Resources 0 2Nematology/Entomology 4 8lPathology 5 11PAhysiology 6 14Taxonomy 1 3Social Science 2 4Research Support 1 4Regional Programs 1 14Training and Communications 8 13Administration 4 10

Total Assistants 33 94(35%)

TOTAL 48 197(24%)

'Based on Rough Analysis of the 1988 Staff

Listings: 1988 Annual Report pp. 196-200

44

is made. While the 'equity orientation' of CIAT in terms oflimited resource farmers and consumers is applauded, noconcern is raised over lack of gender disaggregation to see ifthere are any differences among this group. In addition tonoting that the bean farmers in East Africa are women, theonly further note on gender is at the end of the section whereit states: "At the other end of the spectrum, at the micro-level,the Farmer Participatory Research Project is seeking ways todraw men and women into the research process in theircapacities as producers, processors and consumers."

The answer given to the gender-specific question posedin the 1989 CIAT EMR addresses only part of the wider issue.It reads:

More aggressive assistance with spousal employ-ment may also be warranted, particularly if CIAT isserious about improving the gender balance; pro-fessional women almost invariably have profes-sional spouses. There is already a new policypermitting CIAT employment of spouses in out-reach programs under specified conditions. Thisissue is endemic to all CGIAR centers and a con-certed collaborative effort to identify solutionswould probably be useful (p. 39).

The report also notes that at CIAT, internationally re-cruited staff includes 97 men and 11 women (10.2%). Thereview contains no gender breakdown by program or bydiscipline.

The 1990 IITA EMR included the gender-specific ques-tion in the terms of reference under human resources. Theresponse is: "The ratio of male to female international staffis about 8:1. The ratio has shown slight improvement in re-cent years. Efforts to hire more female staff should continue"(p. 39).

The report contains tables with information on all hu-man resource indicators except gender. There is no informa-tion about gender disparity or about problems with recruit-ment, retention, career development, efforts to attract women, 4

or turnover. Nor is there information on nationally hired staffregarding gender, sector, or discipline. In sum, the answer tothe question by the evaluation team is incomplete.

The same can be said for the other reviews. Though it isnecessary to include the question in the terms of reference forthe EMRs and EPRs, and the CGIAR and TAC are to becommended for taking this initiative, asking the question isnot enough. TAC and the CGIAR will have to monitor whetherthe review teams address the question and whether the re-sponses are adequate. In addition, it is not sufficient just to besure women are on the review teams. Some of these teams didinclude women. One had two women. It is necessary for thecenters themselves to take the issue seriously and to preparefor the review by disaggregating their staff and training partici-pants by gender. This will enable the CGIAR to monitorprogress in reaching gender balance and will provide review-ers with the information necessary to make an assessment.

Restrictions on the numbers of people on review teamsand the variety of qualifications that must be represented willlimit the extent to which gender specialists can be placed onboth EMR and EPR teams. Given the move to more strategicEPRs, however, greater attention will be paid to linkages withthe national systems and their capacity to collaborate as strongpartners with the centers. For this assessment it is imperativeto have a member on the panel who is sensitive to the issue ofNARS linkages with their resource-poor clients, and to thepotential impact of technologies on gender balance in the farmhousehold.

9. The gender information gap.

While today there is a virtual explosion of literature ongender issues in all aspects of development, the majority ofcenter staff does not see it. One reason is that the scientiststhemselves have fairly specialized disciplinary interests andare assigned specific tasks. Their fieldwork and travel schedulesdo not often allow exploration of related research fields, evenif they are interested. Access to literature is also a problemsince center libraries are also focused on their specific man-

46 dates. It is not economically feasible for the centers to expand

their collections to include the whole of gender literature, butselective inclusion of relevant materials wouldbe an improve-ment. Information specialists could be another resource onthis topic by learning about, and providing access to, literatureon gender issues at local and international levels.

Presentation of information in CGIAR system publica-tions could also be improved. Though centers documentscontain many photographs showing women as farmers andconsumers, few portray women as scientists and researchcollaborators, or in significant numbers in training courses.Again, recognizing the importance of the example that thecenters set in international agriculture, improvements couldand should be made in the visual presentation of the impor-tance of women in the system's work.

VIII. Next Steps

This section outlines five next steps to be taken toovercome the difficulties the system has in dealing withgender, and to finally achieve implementation of the recom-mendations already mentioned.

Step 1. CGIAR system donors must exert pressure on thesystem to adopt an explicit gender perspective and to incorpo-rate gender analysis in the research agenda. This pressurecannot be limited to an annual call for ad hoc reporting at theICW. Many, perhaps most, of the major CGIAR system donorshave already implemented gender or WID policies that areroutinely applied to other development efforts. Donors mustreconsider these policies and devise appropriate means toapply them to the CGIAR system.

Step 2. TAC and the CGIAR have taken a critical first step byadding questions on women and gender issues to the terms ofreference for the regular centers' review process (the EMR andthe EPRP. However, this is not enough. Review teams must betrained in how to look for information to answer these ques-tions. They must be encouraged to address all the questions,not just the part on "how many women are employed." Thismeans looking at two aspects of gender. 47

' 7 ' <C'7: W'5 7CC C . .. 7.... ...... m ... ...... @

The first is the use of gender as an analytical tool in thedescription of problems, in the design and testing of newtechnology, and in the examination of impact on clients andbeneficiaries. In this sense, gender is a part of the researchprocess and evaluators must look for its appropriate applica-tion.

The second aspect deals with staffing. Review teamsmust look at the gender of the centers staff to see how manywomen and men are employed at each level and within thevarious programs.

Centers themselves should assist the review teams inthis process by annually providing a gender disaggregatedaccounting of staff at all levels, by covering pragmatic themes,and by summarizing gender-related research and results.Between the regular reviews, center progress on these issuescan be monitored by reviewing annual reports, research re-ports, planning documents, and other accounts of centeractivities.

Step 3. If centers are to take gender issues seriously andincorporate gender analysis into relevant parts of their re-search and programming, center staff need to learn how to dothis. It is clear from the review of the centers' experience todate that only a few scientists, mostly social scientists, usegender analysis as a tool in their work. Those who do came tothe centers having learned these skills elsewhere. Despite theliterature on gender issues, the centers have not adapted theirmethods to include gender analysis. Simply reading orhearing about gender issues is not sufficient to make a changein the way research is done. Training is needed to encouragethis change.

Training needs to be carried out on two tracks - one forpeople currently being trained by the centers, and one forpeople already working at the centers. With respect to the firstgroup, the training curriculum offered by the centers fornational program researchers and practitioners needs to bereviewed and revised for gender content. This does not meanthe creation of a special course on gender, but rather the

48 careful incorporation of gender issues and methods into

existing, appropriate courses. Obviously, there is no need forgender content in the courses dealing with such specializedtechnology as virus testing procedures.

However, courses dealing with user- or client-orientedresearch methods, such as processing and storage systems,small-scale machinery, pest management, seed management,and on-farm research in general, can be enhanced by includinggender issues and methods. The CIMMYT example from EastAfrica described earlier, or the work done at IRRI to revise thefarming systems course curriculum (Frio, 1990), are usefulmodels for other centers. In both cases the courses were notnecessarily expanded, but alternate materials and exerciseswere included that draw participants' attention to male andfemale roles in farming and to gender analysis tools fortechnology design and testing. Relevant training materialsand literature already exist for these purposes. The next stepnecessary is to incorporate them through the normal channelsof training curriculum review and revision.

Training the center staff itself is also critical. While it isnot necessary for every center staff scientist or research assistantto be an expert in gender analysis, it is important that thecenter as a whole adopt a positive attitude toward gender.Providing training of all staff, from top to bottom, would be asignificant step toward revising the gender bias that exists inagricultural research institutions -centers included -and increating a climate in which gender issues can be dealt with ona rational, analytical level, rather than through the haze ofmisperceptions and prejudice.

I would propose three types of gender issues training forthe centers:

Type 1. Sensitization and awareness;

Type 2. Gender analysis methods; and

Type 3. Training of trainers.

Type 1. Sensitization and awareness. This is a 'starter'course and is targeted at the entire staff. The purpose is to 49

=: . R:8n n ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~.. . c... .. :..:.. :.,

promote general awareness and understanding of the differ-ence between sex and gender, the reasons why gender issuesare important in agricultural research, and the framework andbasic tools used in gender analysis. The training will givecenter staff a common set of terms and definitions - avocabulary to use in discussing gender issues and analysis.This will help correct the misconceptions and confusionabout the differences between gender analysis and genderstaffing.

The content for a Type 1 course can be drawn fromexisting gender training materials (see for examples Overholtet al., 1985; Feldstein et al., 1989; Feldstein and Poats, 1990),but should be complemented with examples from the com-modities and areas of each center's concern. The courseshould contain hands-on exercises to give each participant achance to handle gender data and experiment with analysisand interpretation. Practical exercises in applying courselessons to each staff member's ownjob responsibilities shouldbe the final part of the course.

Type 1 training should be conducted first among allcenters senior management and leaders, without exception.Training must start at the top to show that the issues areimportant. Then training should proceed in groups of 25 to30, mixing senior scientists and research staff in interdiscipli-nary fashion.

It is suggested that course trainers be drawn from outsidethe center so all center members can participate equally.However, the trainers should be familiar with the centers andtheir activities. It might be possible for existing gender-experienced researchers from other centers to participate astrainers or resource people.

Experience in conducting this same type of training in awide range of institutions for similar purposes strongly sug-gests that a minimum of one-and-a-half days should be allo-cated for the training session. To keep down costs, it wouldbe wise to schedule a series of courses at a time when staff are

50 gathered at headquarters. Follow-up monitoring at 6 and 12

months should be designed to gauge impact on staff members'work.

Many centers are conducting a number of other stafftraining programs dealing with such topics as management,research planning, and resource allocation. Gender tends toget short shrift in the face of these other priorities. Donors,CGIAR, TAC, and center directors will have to determine justwhere their commitment lies on user issues as a whole, andgender specifically, and then allocate the necessary resourcesto get the job done.

Type 2. Gender analysis methods. Following Type 1training, those people with research responsibilities that drawthem into close contact with technology users should beselected for more thorough training in gender analysismethods. Gender- experienced center staff can be both valuableresources and facilitators for such training or, depending onindividual capabilities, can be trainers themselves. Thistraining course would be more explicitly focused on datagathering and analysis methodologies, interpretation skills,and field practice. Field practicum work is an essential partof such a course because it provides the necessary experiencein doing research using a new gender perspective.

The course content would be similar to the gendercontent described above for the first group. However, sincethe participating researchers would already be experienced inthe other content areas, the gender methods alone would bethe focus. Between three and five days are usually needed forsuch training.

Including research collaborators from projects with NARSmay be an effective way to promote a team approach toaddressing gender issues in new or ongoing projects. Type 2courses can be designed to initiate field or project work toinclude gender issues. In essence the practicum launchesparticipants in applying gender tools and in using the genderanalysis framework on an actual research problem. Tyingtraining to such work can enhance both the relevance andspeed with which the tools become part of the normal way ofdoing research. 51

.............. .: ..... .... W... -. .n): ,8 ::.

Type 3. Training of trainers. Sustaining the genderperspective within the centers' training program will be thetask of center trainers and training staff. Trainers shouldparticipate in Type 1 and 2 training courses and then move toa Type 3 course to gain additional experience and to focus onadditional ideas, options, and approaches, and to get practicedoing gender issues training. Centers may wish to combineforces in training their trainers to be able to incorporate genderissues within their own training programs by holding Type 3courses for all trainers at once.

A Type 3 course should focus on practice with a varietyof already existing training materials that have proved usefulin teaching gender analysis tools to researchers and devel-opment workers in other settings. Trainers should also beexposed to new types of training materials and approachesthat have been particularly effective in dealing with genderissues that might not already be in their own repertoire.Finally, trainers should be given practice and guidance indeveloping new materials specific to their technical mandatesfor teaching gender issues in their own centers.

The duration of this type of training depends on trainers'skills and on the number of people in the course. Theimportant thing is to give the trainer-participants enough timeto practice training on gender issues, and to design gendercomponents for other training courses so they will be able tocarry on this work within the centers. Experienced trainerswho have done gender training themselves should be soughtas course facilitators. The experienced trainers can serve asmentors to the trainer-participants as they begin training intheir respective centers.

Taken together, these three types of training will de-velop the centers' capacity to undertake research with agender perspective and to sustain that perspective with newmembers of their own staff and among the trainees fromnational programs.

Step 4. Centers should use existing networks such as thosealready established for collaborative activity on commodity

52 research, to develop common themes and research method-

ologies for dealing with gender issues. There are severaladvantages of doing this. First, networks bring a vitality toresearch by engaging a number of researchers in differentsocioeconomic and agroecological settings to focus attentionon similar issues and using similar methodological approaches.The networking approach would bring greater innovation togender analysis methodologies, and would provide a range ofexamples that demonstrate why and how gender-sensitiveresearch can make a difference to the development and adoptionof technology.

The networking approach applied to gender issues willalso help to reinforce the linkage between the IARCs and theNARS. Placing gender issues and analysis within a networkhelps to integrate the gender perspective into the larger researchframework.

Step 5. The CGIAR should develop a strategy paper forimplementing existing recommendations. Each center thenneeds to develop its own strategy statement, similar to IRRI's,and to translate it into a workplan and incorporate it into aplan for resource allocation.

These five steps will enhance the capacity of the centers,and the CGIAR system as a whole, to employ gender analysisas a normal, pragmatic way of conducting good agriculturalresearch, and to develop useful technologies for resource-poorfarmers.

53

Ref erences

Adalla, C. B. 1988. Women in Rice IPM: The Calama Experi-ence. Paper presented at the Women in Rice Farming

- ~~~Systems Workshop held at the International Rice Re-search Institute May 2-11.

Ashby, Jacqueline A. 1987. Implications of Differential UserImpacts for the Research Process. Presentation to theCGIAR Gender Issues Seminar, ICW 1987. Washington,DC.

Ashby, Jacqueline A. 1990. Production and ConsumptionAspects of Technology Testing in Pescador, Colombia. InFeldstein, Hilary Sims and Susan V. Poats. 1990. WorkingTogether: Gender Analysis in Agriculture, Vols. 1 and 2.West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Ashby, Jacqueline A., and Stella Gomez. 1985. Women, Agri-culture, and Rural Development in Latin America. Cali,Colombia: CIAT and IFDC.

Aiggs, S. D. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation inResearch: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine NARS.OFCOR Comparative Study Paper No.3. The Hague: Inter-national Service for National Agricultural Research.

Carney, Judith. 1988. Response to the Request for Informationon Work that is Directed to Assisting Women in theDeveloping World, and Any Assessment of its Effective-ness. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT Document No. 3.

Carney, Judith. February 1990. Personal communication.

Carr, Marilyn, and Ruby Sandhu. 1987. Women, Technologyand Rural Productivity: An Analysis of the Impact of Timeand Energy-Saving Technologies on Women. New York:United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFFM)

54 Occasional Paper No. 6.

~~~... .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . ........-.s

CGIAR. 1983. The Fragile Web: The International AgriculturalResearch System. Ottawa: IDRC/CIDA and Washington,D.C.: Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch.

CGIAR. 1985. CGIAR News. Vol. 5, No. 2. Washington, D.C.:CGIAR Secretariat.

CGIAR. 1988. Annual Report 1987/88. Washington, D.C.:CGIAR Secretariat.

CGIAR. 1989a. Annual Report 1988/89. Washington, D.C.:CGIAR Secretariat.

CGIAR. 1989b. Report of the Second External ManagementReview of the Centro Internacional de AgriculturaTropical(CIAT). Washington, D.C.: CGIAR Secretariat.

CGIAR. 1989c. Report of the Second External ManagementReview of the International Potato Center (CIP). Wash-ington, D.C.: CGIAR Secretariat.

CGIAR. 1990. Report of the Second External ManagementReview of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture(IITA). Washington, D.C.: CGIAR Secretariat.

Chabala, Charles, and R. Gichira. 1990. Intrahousehold Dy-namnics and FSR/E; in Zambia; A Case Study of TraditionalRecommendation Domain No. 3. In Central Province. InFeldstein, Hilary Sims, and Susan V. Poats. 1990. WorkingTogether: Gender Analysis in Agriculture, Vols. 1 and 2.West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

CIAT. 1985a. CIAT Report 1985. Cali, Colombia: CentroInternacional de Agricultura Tropical.

CIAT. 1985b. Annual Report 1985: Bean Program. WorkingDocument No. 14. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacionalde Agricultura Tropical.

CIAT. 1987. Informe CIAT 1987. Cali, Colombia: CentroInternacional de Agricultura Tropical. 55

CIAT. 1989a. Informe CIAT 1989. Cali, Colombia: CentroInternacional de Agricultura Tropical.

CIAT. 1989b. CIAT in the 1990s: A Strategic Plan. RevisedDraft, September. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.

CIMMYT. 1988. CIMMYT 1987 Annual Report: A Dialoguewith the Future. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize andWheat Improvement Center.

CIMMYT. 1989. CIMMYT 1988 Annual Report: DeliveringDiversity. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and WheatImprovement Center.

CIP. 1988. Annual Report. Lima, Peru: International PotatoCenter.

CIP. 1989. Annual Report. Lima, Peru: International PotatoCenter.

Cloud, Kathleen. 1987. Gender Issues in AID's AgriculturalProjects: How Efficient Are We? A Study of the LessonsLearned in Implementation of AID's Women in Develop-ment Policy in West and North Africa, the Near East, andAsia. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for Interna-tional Development Working Paper No. 85.

Cloud, Kathleen. 1988. A Teaching Module on Women andAgriculture: Household Level Analysis. Draft preparedfor the International Workshop on Women, Households,and Development: Building a Data Base. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois.

Crissman, Charles C. 1989. Seed Potato Systems in The Phil-ippines: A Case Study. Lima, Peru: International PotatoCenter and Los Banos, Philippines: Philippine Council forAgriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research andDevelopment.

Crissman, Charles C., and Jorge E. Uquillas. 1989. Seed PotatoSystems in Ecuador: A Case Study. Lima, Peru: Interna-tional Potato Center and Quito, Ecuador: Fundacion para

56 el Desarrollo Agropecuario.

a v .. .. ;e,gy..',*.*h5...'..d.*,i,->~~~~~... ... .........

Crissman, Linda McArthur. 1989. Evaluation, Choice and Useof Potato Varieties in Kenya. Lima, Peru: InternationalPotato Center, Social Science Department Working Paper1989-1.

Diouf, Jacques. 1989. The Challenge of Agricultural Develop-ment in Africa. Sir John Crawford Memorial Lecture,November 2, 1989, Washington, D.C.: The ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research.

Feldstein, Hilary Sims, and Susan V. Poats. 1990. WorkingTogether: Gender Analysis in Agriculture, Vols. 1 and 2.West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Feldstein, Hilary Sims, Cornelia Butler Flora, and Susan V.Poats. 1989. The Gender Variable in Agricultural Re-search, Ottawa: IDRC Manuscript Report 225e.

Frio, A. March 1990, Personal communication.

Goldman, A. January 1990. Personal communication.

Hahn, Natalie D.1986. The African Farmer and Her Husband.Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium.Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University.

Horton, Douglas. 1987. Potatoes: Production, Marketing andPrograms for Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado:Westview Press.

Hoyt, Eric. 1988. Conserving the Wild Relatives of Crops.International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR),International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natu-ral Resources (IUCN), and World Wide Fund For Nature(WWF). Rome, Italy: IBPGR.

ICARDA. 1986. ICARDA Annual Report 1986. Aleppo, Syria:International Center for Agricultural Research in the DryAreas.

ICARDA. 1988. ICARDA Annual Report 1987. Aleppo, Syria:International Center for Agricultural Research in the DryAreas. 57

,l _'., Z R :: N g g .. g . h'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__ :.'.........

ICRISAT. 1989. ICRISAT Research Highlights 1988.Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institutefor the Semi-Arid Tropics.

IFPRI. 1987. Medium-Term Program and Budget Plan 1988-1992, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Re-search Institute.

IITA. 1986. IITA Annual Report and Research Highlights1986. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of TropicalAgriculture.

IITA. 1988a. IITA Annual Report and Research Highlights1987/1988. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute ofTropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1988b. IITA Strategic Plan 1989-2000. Ibadan, Nigeria:International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. n.d. Training Opportunities at IITA. Ibadan, Nigeria:International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

ILCA. 1987. ILCA's Strategy and Long-Term Plan. AddisAbaba, Ethiopia: International Livestock Center for Africa.

ILCA. 1989. ILCA Annual Report 1988. Addis Ababa, Ethio-pia: International Livestock Center for Africa.

INIBAP. 1987. International Network for the Improvement ofBanana and Plantain. Montpellier, France.

INSTRAW. 1989. "The Woman Who Brings Economic Powerto Other Women." INSTRAW News: Women in Devel-opment. Dominican Republic: United Nations InternationalResearch and Training Institute for the Advancement ofWomen, No. 12:30.

IRRI. 1985. Women in Rice Farming: Proceedings of a Confer-ence on Women in Rice Farming Systems, held at theIntemational Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines,26-30 September 1983. Aldershot, England: Gower Pub-

58 lishing Co.

IRRI. 1987. Annual Report for 1986. Los Banos, Philippines:International Rice Research Institute.

IRRI. 1988. IRRI Highlights 1987. Los Banos, Philippines:International Rice Research Institute.

IRRI. 1989. IRRI Toward 2000 and Beyond. Manila, Philip-pines: International Rice Research Institute.

ISNAR. 1988. Annual Report. The Hague: International Ser-vice for National Agricultural Research.

Jahnke, Hans E., Dieter Kirschke, and Johannes Lagemann.1987. The Impact of Agricultural Research in TropicalAfrica. Washington, D.C.: CGIAR Study Paper No. 21.

Jiggins, Janice. 1986. Gender-Related Impacts and the Work ofthe International Agricultural Research Centers. Wash-ington, D.C.: CGIAR Study Paper No.17.

Malcom, Shirley M., Hiroko Morita-Lou, PatriciaA. Boulware,and SandraM. Burns, eds. 1985. Science, Technology andWomen: AWorldPerspective. Publishedbythe AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science and theCentre for Science and Technology for Development oftheUnited Nations. AAAS Publication no. 85-14.

Moock, Joyce Lewinger, ed. 1986. Understanding Africa'sRural Households and Farming Systems. Boulder, Colo-rado: Westview Press.

MUCIA. 1983. Draft Proposal for a Collaborative Program onWomen and Agriculture Between the MUCIA Women inDevelopment Network and the International AgriculturalResearch Centers. Mimeo.

Murphy, Josette. 1989. Women and Agriculture in Africa: AGuide to Bank Policy and Programs for Operations Staff.Washington, D.C.: Agriculture Division, Technical De-partment, Africa Region, The World Bank. 59

: ...... ...........: a ;. :::.... : - .-. a . . f ..

N.A. 1988. International Agricultural Research Centers'Workshop on Human Resource Development ThroughTraining. Summary Report. Lima, Peru: International Po-tato Center.

Norman, David W., Mark D. Newman, and Ismael Ouedraogo.1981. Farm and Village Production Systems in the Semi-Arid Tropics of West Africa: An Interpretive Review ofResearch. Patancheru, India: International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Overholt, Catherine, Mary B. Anderson, Kathleen Cloud, andJames E. Austin. 1985. Gender Roles in DevelopmentProjects. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Paris, Thelma, 1988. Women in a Crop-Livestock FarmingSystem Project in Santa Barbara, Pangasinan, Philip-pines. In S. Poats, N. Schmink and A. Spring; GenderIssues in FSR/E. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Poats, Susan V., and Sandra L. Russo. 1989. Training in WID/Gender Analysis in Agricultural Development: A Reviewof Experiences and Lessons Learned. Prepared by Tropi-cal Research and Development, Inc., Gainesville, FloridaFor the Women in Agricultural Production and RuralDevelopment Service of the Food and Agricultural Orga-nization of the United Nations.

Poats, Susan V. ,Jean Gearing, and SandraRusso. 1989. GenderIssues in Farming Systems Research and Extension: ASurvey of Current Projects. Prepared by Tropical Researchand Development, Inc., Gainesville, Florida forthe Bureaufor Program and Policy Coordination, Of fice of Women inDevelopment, U.S. Agency forlInternational Development,W.Aashington, D.C.

Poats, Susan V., Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring, eds.1988. Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research andExtension. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Rathgeber, Eva.1987. Women in Development: Some ThoughtsonlDRC Support. Ottawa: IDRC Social Sciences Division,

60 Manuscript.

.:.::.sm: .: ..............~~~~~..... ......... .:2.:::::

Rao, Arunashree, ed. 1986. Incorporating Gender Issues inDevelopment Training. Bangkok, Thailand: The Popula-tion Council.

Rockefeller/ISNAR. 1985. Women and Agricultural Technol-ogy: Relevance for Research. Vol. I. Analyses and Conclu-sions. Vol. II. Experiences in International and NationalResearch. The Hague: International Service for NationalAgricultural Research.

Russo, Sandra, Jennifer Bremer-Fox, Susan Poats, and LaureneGraig. 1989. Gender Issues in Agriculture and NaturalResource Management. Prepared by Robert R. NathanAssociates, Inc. for the Office of Women in Development,Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agencyfor International Development, Washington, D.C.

Russell, N. C. 1989. Ghana's Tradition Makers: ChangingPatterns in Food Crops Research, Extension and Produc-tion. Mexico D.F.: International Maize and Wheat Im-provement Center.

Saito, Katrine, and Jean Weidemann. 1990. Agricultural Ex-tension for Women Farmers in Africa. PHRWD/TheWorld Bank. Prepared for the World Bank and AfricanDevelopment Bank Symposium on Household Food Se-curity and the Role of Women, Harare, Zimbabwe, January21-24, 1990.

Sperling, Louise. December 1989. Personal communication.

Stamp, Patricia. 1989. Technology, Gender, and Power inAfrica. Ottawa: IDRC Technical Study 63e.

Sutherland, Alistair, 1987. Proceedings of a RegionalNetworkshop on Household Relationships and FSR/E.Lusaka, Zambia, April 27-30. CIMMYT Eastern andSouthern African Networkshop Reports No. 10.

TAC. 1985. TAC Review of CGIAR Priorities and FutureStrategies. Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO. 61

,. . ,:, B h, ,, .::, . ,: i. .. .....: .. . ........ .0 . ::,0 ':: :,

TAC. 1986. Training in the CGIAR System: Building HumanResources for Research to Improve Food Production inDeveloping Countries. Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

TAC/CGIAR. 1984. Report of the External Programme Re-view of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture(IITA). Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

TAC/CGIAR. 1987. Report of the Third External ProgramReview of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

TAC/CGIAR. 1989a. Report of the Third External ProgramReview of the Centro International de Agricultural Tropical(CIAT). Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

TAC/CGIAR. 1989b. Report of the Third External ProgramReview of the International Potato Center (CIP). Rome,Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

TAC/CGIAR. 1990. Report of the Third External ProgrammeReview of the Intemational Institute of Tropical Agriculture(IITA). Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

Tripp, Robert, Kofi Marfo, A.A. Dankyi, and Michael Read.1987. Changing Maize Production Practices of Small-scale Farmers in the Brong-Ahafo Region, Ghana. Ghana:Ghana Grains Development Project.

WARDA. n.d. A Decade of Mangrove Swamp Rice Research.Bouake, Cote d'Ivoire: West Africa Rice DevelopmentAssociation.

WARDA. 1986a. Serving Farmers: West Africa Rice Develop-ment Association Highlights 1986. Monrovia, Liberia:West Africa Rice Development Association.

WARDA. 1986b. WARDA Annual Report. Monrovia, Liberia:West Africa Rice Development Association.

WARDA. 1988. WARDA's Strategic Plan: 1990-2000. Bouake,62 Cote d'Ivoire: WestAfricaRice DevelopmentAssociation.

it aS S * *08 a sF Z g *%00 ~~ ~ ~~~. .. . ... 0............ .............

WIRFS. 1987. Women in Rice Farming Systems: An Opera-tional Research and Training Program. Manila, Philip-pines: International Rice Research Institute.

WIRFS. 1989. Progress Report Women in Rice Farming Sys-tems. Ford Foundation Grant No. 1 860-0569A. InFeldstein, Hilary Sims and Susan V. Poats. Women in RiceFarming Systems: A Review Report. Los Banos, Philip-pines: International Rice Research Institute.

® Printed on Recycled Paper 63