ESSAY 4
Research Institute (IFPRI) and the U.K.-based Oxford University Poverty
and Human Development Initiative. The Index evaluates the effectiveness
of agriculture programs by tracking changes in different aspects of female
farmers’ decision-making power. Examples of what goes into “empowerment” scores include influence in decisions as to what to plant, if and when
to buy or sell assets, and how to organize work schedules.
Women’s empowerment scores are compared to those of men in the
household, since there are situations where no one has a particularly high
empowerment score and other cases where there is a sharp “empowerment
gap” between men and women. The Index wa s piloted in Guatemala, Uganda, and Bangladesh. They were chosen so data from three continents could
help verify that the idea of measuring something called “empowerment in
agriculture” made sense.
Americans rarely hear much about Bangladesh beyond the occasional
news story about widespread flooding. But while it’s a poor country already
coping with climate change, Bangladesh has also achieved steady economic
growth, become self-sufficient in rice production, and is on track to lower
child mortality by two-thirds by 2015, as called for in the U.N. Millennium
Development Goals.
Aysha, Seema, and Naju are three young Bangladeshi farmers, ages 2535, who participated in the pilot phase of the Women’s Empowerment in
Agriculture Index. Aysha had an arranged marriage at the age of 13 and has
two children. She says that although she and her husband discuss matters
related to their land or livestock, he makes the final decisions on all issues.
Seema left school at 12 because her mother died. She considers empowerment the ability to work, gain assets, and send her three children to school;
she does not believe that women should aspire to influential positions. Aysha’s and Seema’s scores on the Index indicated that they are disempowered
overall and also less empowered than their husbands.
Naju, who is divorced with one child, says that ideally, both husband
and wife should be involved in making decisions. Naju has a high school
diploma, but her father-in-law did not allow her to continue in college after
she married. She says that men make the important decisions in Bangladeshi society, but also believes that women who work and make decisions as
farmers are powerful because they themselves grow crops. Naju’s score was
high enough to put her in the “empowered” category on the Index.
As these women, their neighbors, and thousands of others participate
in Feed the Future programs intended to reduce hunger in rural areas,
they will be scored again on the Index to help determine whether and how
changes occur—and how their empowerment status influences their success
in farming and their children’s nutritional status.
Bread for the World Institute staff visited Bangladesh in April 2012
to see how U.S. development assistance is enabling rural communities to
improve nutrition, especially among young children. For all the country’s
progress, malnutrition is still its major development challenge. While nutrition programs have interlocking components designed to bring change
over time, two examples of activities that visitors can show up and watch are
“courtyard talks” and monthly growth monitoring sessions.
&
Myths
Realities
Myth: Agricultural productivity
receives a large enough share of U.S. development assistance. It is not important
to make it a higher priority; investing in
industries like mining or manufacturing
clothing is just as useful.
Reality: Until recently, donors had
neglected agriculture for decades. But
smallholder farmers and laborers are
vital to feeding a growing population, and
they are also the majority of the world’s
hungry people.
Given the limited development funding
available, investments that make agriculture more productive—and farmers’
livelihoods more resilient in the face of
crises such as drought—should be a top
priority. Productive use of available land
is essential to making further progress
on global hunger and poverty.
nn
Myth: Opening an agricultural devel-
opment program to both male and female
farmers is enough to ensure that it is
successful.
Reality: Many societies have a “separate and unequal” system of allocating
work, family responsibilities, and access
to resources based on gender. Simply
indicating that women are eligible to participate in programs will not necessarily
ensure that they actually participate.
Identifying factors that reduce women’s
likelihood of benefiting from programs—
and strategies to ease those barriers—is
essential to effective agricultural development.
Barriers can be powerful whether they
are practical (tools, supplies, the authority to make decisions, time to spare from
work and children) or cultural (perhaps
women generally do not attend classes
with men, or it is seen as a husband’s
role to interact with outsiders and pass
along to his wife the information she
needs).
www.bread.org/institute
n
Development Works 25