16
Agnes Quisumbing, Chiara Kovarik*, Quinn Bernier *([email protected]) Gender and Climate Smart Agricultural Practices: Evidence from Bangladesh

Gender and Climate Smart Agricultural Practices: Evidence from Bangladesh

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Agnes Quisumbing, Chiara Kovarik*, Quinn Bernier

*([email protected])

Gender and Climate Smart

Agricultural Practices: Evidence

from Bangladesh

Gender and agriculture in Bangladesh

• Similar to other parts of South Asia, where patrilineal and patriarchal systems prevail, women in Bangladesh have much lower levels of literacy, schooling, assets, and land than men

• As a result of lower education and other assets, women in Bangladesh earn half of what men earn

• Production system involves joint (male and female) farming on family farms; women rarely recognized as farmers, and seldom are targeted by extension services

Recognizing women as agricultural

producers

• Although still lower than men’s, women’s participation in agricultural employment has been increasing.

• Women tend to be involved in homestead rather than field crop production.

• Women are often more involved in vegetable and small livestock production, because it does not violate social norms of female seclusion Source: BBS, Labour Force Survey, 199/00, 2002/03 and

2005/06

Bangladesh CCAFS

sites

Two different potential types of watermanagement systems:

--Bagerhat: medium saline, less potential for groundwater access; easier to reach, so more diversification options- Satkhira: highly saline but with higher potential for shallow groundwater use due to less salinity intrusion into groundwater; more difficult to reach but borders West Bengal

Men have higher levels of human and physical capital

and stronger land rights than women

Male FemaleSignficance

level

Age 46.15 37.85 ***

Years of schooling 4.99 4.41 **

Own assets 42.91 16.56 ***

Own livestock 1.06 8.51 ***Own assets as a proportion of total household assets 0.49 0.24 ***Own livestock as a proportion of total household livestock 0.08 0.66 ***

Whether owns land 0.61 0.05 ***

Whether decisionmaker 0.85 0.40 ***

***significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%

Men and women get information from different

sourcesMales Females Significance

level

Agricultural information sources

Government extension services 0.28 0.07 ***

Agricultural service providers 0.04 0.00 ***Farmer field days 0.12 0.01 ***Group-based information sources

NGO 0.14 0.10Community meetings 0.03 0.00 ***

Farmer orgs, coops, CBOs 0.02 0.01Informal sources

Family members 0.13 0.05 ***Neighbors 0.50 0.81 ***Media, internet, and schools

Radio 0.72 0.88 ***Television 0.58 0.32 ***

Newspaper/bulletin 0.87 0.55 ***Schools/teacher 0.15 0.04 ***Cell phone 0.02 0.01Internet 0.02 0.01Traditional sources

Traditional forecasters, indigenous knowledge, etc. 0.55 0.39 0.000

Awareness and adoption of CSA

practices with long-term benefits

Whether respondentis aware of practice

Whether respondent adopted practice in past year

if they were aware of it

Male Female Sig level Male Female p-value

Agroforestry 0.56 0.43 *** 0.08 0.05

Terracing 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.22

Water harvesting 0.27 0.17 *** 0.26 0.11 ***

Irrigation 0.97 0.97 0.63 0.53 ***

Planting pits 0.06 0.01 *** 0.08 0.20

Minimum tillage 0.30 0.27 0.07 0.03

Improved feed management 0.29 0.26 0.58 0.72 **Grazing or rangeland management 0.08 0.02 *** 0.08 0.11

Patterns of adoption, conditional on awareness, are consistent with spheres of responsbility (men—agriculture and water control, women—livestock)

Awareness and adoption of CSA

practices with short-term benefits

Whether respondent is aware of practice

Whether respondent adopted practice in past year

if they were aware of it

Male Female p-value Male Female p-value

Applying crop residue 0.56 0.54 0.42 0.40

Composting 0.80 0.71 *** 0.38 0.37

Livestock manure management 0.63 0.61 0.53 0.35 ***

More efficient fertilizer use 0.87 0.57 *** 0.84 0.63 ***

Improved high yielding varieties 0.61 0.41 *** 0.58 0.44 ***

Planting stress-tolerant varieties 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.11

Destocking 0.14 0.02 *** 0.10 0.27 *

Cover cropping 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.02Switch to drought tolerant livestock 0.07 0.02 *** 0.10 0.11

Integrated pest management 0.78 0.63 *** 0.48 0.46

Analyzing adoption of CSA practices, conditional

on awareness

• Analyzing determinants of adoption needs to take into account selectivity owing to endogeneity of awareness: men and women who are more aware of these technologies may have different characteristics, better access to information, compared to those who don’t

• Approach is very similar to Kenya paper that uses a Heckman two-step procedure

Summary of coefficient estimates of awareness of CSA practices with

long-term benefits

Relationship Variables Practice affected

Positive Years of schooling Terracing, irrigation, feed mgt

Total assets Agroforestry, min tillage

Total livestock Terracing

Having title Min tillage

Spouse aware Agroforestry, terracing, H2O harvest

Group based info Min tillage

Relatives/neighbors Agroforestry, irrigation, feed mgt

Media, internet, schools Agroforestry, irrigation, feed mgt

Traditional sources Agroforestry, terracing, feed mgt

Negative Being female Agroforestry, terracing, min tillage, feed mgt

Total assets Terracing, H2O harvest

Traditional H20 harvest

Agricultural information sources do NOT affect awareness at all!

Summary of coefficient estimates of adoption of CSA practices with

long-term benefits

Relationship Variables Practice affected

Positive % livestock Minimum tillage

Respondent owns land; gender decisionmaking

Agroforestry

Farm area; flood impact Water harvesting

Makes decisions on plot Terracing, irrigation

Crop shock, drought shock Feed management

Innovative orientation Terracing, feed management

Knowledge about crop,livestock, pest management

Water harvesting, irrigation

Trust Irrigation

Negative Being female Min tillage

Schooling Terracing

% livestock Agroforestry

Flood impact Feed management

Gender decisionmaking Water harvesting

Summary of coefficient estimates of awareness of CSA practices with

short-term benefits

Relationship

Variables Practice affected

Positive Schooling Crop residue, composting

% assets owned Composting

Household assets Composting, HYV

Livestock Composting, cover crop

Spouse aware Crop residue, manure mgt, HYV, destocking

Agricultural info source Composting, fertilizer, destocking

Group info source HYV, cover crop

Relatives and neighbors Crop residue, composting, manure mgt, destocking, cover crop

Media, internet, schools Fertilizer, HYV, destocking, cover crop, IPM

Traditional sources Composting, HYV, cover crop, IPM

Negative Being female Crop residue, composting, fertilizer, HYV, destocking

Owns land; traditional Crop residue

Spouse aware IPM

Summary of coefficient estimates of adoption of CSA practices with

short-term benefits

Relationship

Variables Practice affected

Positive Being female Composting, destocking, cover cropping

Schooling Fertilizer use

Total assets Manure mgt, cover cropping

Farm area Crop residue, composting, manure mgt, fertilizer, destocking, IPM

Crop shock Crop residue, destocking, cover cropping

Soil erosion Crop residue, composting, manure mgt, fertilizer, HYV

Decides on plot Fertilizer, HYV, cover crop

Innovative Crop residue, cover crop

Extreme event Fertilizer, HYV, destocking

Negative % livestock Composting, destocking, cover cropping

Owns land Manure mgt, HYV

Farm area; female decision Cover cropping

Discussion and policy implications

• There are gender gaps in awareness and adoption, but conditional on awareness, gender gaps in adoption are less stark

• Implication: improve reach of CSA-related information; improve traditional agricultural extension systems’ messaging, particularly on practices with long-term benefits

• Agricultural extension systems need to reach women farmers through better messaging, employment of female extension agents, etc.

• Also explore other ways of disseminating information that may be less biased against women: radio, social networks, ICT (phone and internet)

Future analysis

– Explore more fully how production systems affect adoption of CSA practices

– Explore implications of diversification of production systems from fish to shrimp culture

– Explore social capital and institutional factors more

– Draw out differences between South Asia and Bangladesh findings—how do culture and context matter for gender differences in CSA adoption?

IFPRI Images

Thank you!

Questions?

Contact Chiara Kovarik:

[email protected]