Summary – LGI

• Overview – Isabelle Baltenweck

  The Livelihoods, Gender and Impact Program overview got 46 comments, as per 14 May at 10 am. LGI has 3 research teams: 1. Smallholder Competitiveness in value chain; 2. Gender; and 3. Impact Assessment (IA). Isabelle Baltenweck presented the overview, Alessandra Galiè presented on gender while Lucy Lapar presented on Smallholder Competitiveness. We didn’t get a chance to present on IA. A summary of the discussions is organized as follows:

  • There is increasing recognition and interest in gender research, as demonstrated by the discussions around the ‘root causes’ of gender inequalities and the role of research in not only understanding them but also identifying mechanisms to address them. There was also discussion related to how gender needs to be mainstreamed in technology development and delivery mechanism.
  • Scientists from other programs highlighted the need for us to be more proactive in impact assessment studies (both ex ante and ex post), linking with their work and providing feedbacks. A couple of examples were highlighted, including the work with the Genebank. Still on M&E and IA, it is worth noting that the team has 2 functions: own research and support to other programs. We increasingly see monitoring data and evaluation results as a great opportunity for valuable scientific investigations. For example, we collaborate closely with RMG to improve the design of interventions and data collection activities in various projects to achieve this.
  • The topic of ‘innovations’ was also discussed, and its place in ILRI, as it was originally in LGI(I). It was clarified that this issue was brought up at IRMC and a task force was constituted
  • The link between PTVC and LGI was also discussed. It was clarified that LGI has a team focusing on farm-level competitiveness and mechanisms to improve smallholders’ access to markets and services, working closely with value chain development initiatives. There is therefore a clear linkage with PTVC, which deals with value chain research.
  • In terms of new or stronger collaboration, joint work with LSE should cover not only climate change but other environmental externalities also.
  • It was finally suggested that in the proposal development checklist, there should be some questions around impact and gender and how these are budgeted, who will be involved in order to avoid these aspects getting lip service once project get funded.
  • The regions asked for a stronger presence and activities! We will take up the challenge!

   

   Exploring gender perceptions of livestock ownership– Alessandra Galiè

   

  The presentation ‘Exploring gender perceptions of livestock ownership’ received 32 comments from male and female colleagues from various disciplines. The comments were generally positive about the usefulness of the findings given that a number of people are working on data that include ‘ownership of livestock’. For the purpose of this summary the comments were clustered into 4 focus issues:

  Decision-making. The largest number of comments focused on decision-making. Decision-making was introduced in the presentation as an example of a more concrete question – than ‘ownership of livestock’, which the paper shows means little – that can be used in studies looking at food security and gender equity. Comments in general welcomed the idea of focusing on decision-making. Some asked about tools to do so. Others asked about ‘how comprehensive it is to focus on decision making about livestock’: are more details on what other assets (beyond livestock) need to be included when looking at decision-making? is a focus on decision-making sufficient to assess gender roles?. Some asked for advice on how to deal with understanding the complexity of decision-making at household level. Some mentioned how to work with instances of co-ownership.

  Gender norms. Some questions focused on the issues of gender-based priorities about livestock management for food security. The presentation had made the point that supporting decision-making –rather than ownership -might have more direct impact on food security. However, decision-making alone might also be insufficient because locally, gender-specific constraints might exist beyond decision-making. An example was brought forward from the paper about respondents from Ethiopia who argued that, together with decision-making about livestock, more flexible gender norms about what roles women can take in the management of the farm and livestock were needed to progress towards food security.

  Methodology. One question was asked about the validity of the findings given the small sample size of 140 respondents from 3 countries. Because the aim of the paper was to show the large variability of ‘understandings of ownership’ – even among the small number of respondents – the small sample size was not considered a weakness.

  Next steps. Some suggestions were put forward on how to progress with this piece of research. One commenter mentioned assessing through observation the daily practices regarding decision-making, management, benefit sharing of livestock. This component will enrich the understanding of how livestock exist within household dynamics. An exchange between one commenter and the presenter resulted in the formulation of a new research question ‘how is the vague nature of OL used in various context to perpetuate gender inequity and how, on the contrary, this very vagueness provides spaces for contestation?’

   

   

  Bringing new insights to livestock science: economics and decision-making– Lucy Lapar

   

  Comments from colleagues can be summed up in three categories, namely: 1) on tools and analytical approaches that can be shared and how they have been used in previous work, as well as how these can be applied to new/ongoing work to address questions about farmer choices on selling vis-à-vis keeping animals, for example; 2) insights on how some institutional and organization solutions to address smallholder constraints to effectively access input and output market have performed in actual practice; and 3) the need for new insights to better connect research with desired outcomes and how to make this happen.

   

  0

  0

  Be the 1st to vote.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)