ACIAR - IFPRI - Women and conservation agricultural tools -case studies from srfsi - Sofina Maharjan, CIMMYT

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of TechnologyCRICOS Provider Code 00301J

Women on Conservation Agriculture

Tools: Case Studies from SRFSIMaria Fay Rola-Rubzen, Sofina Maharjan and Kuhu Chatterjee


Outline

▪ Introduction

▪SRFSI Overview

▪Women Participation in SRFSI

▪Case Studies of Farm Women

▪Summary

▪ Issues & Challenges

▪Future Strategies

2


Rationale▪ Agriculture is a risky enterprise

(Hardaker et al., 2004)

▪ Climate change has adverse

effect on agriculture; farm

households have to adapt

(Howden et al., 2007)

3

▪ Conservation agriculture was introduced to minimise

soil tillage and attain sustainable cultivation (Hobbs,

Sayre, & Gupta, 2008)

▪ There is a modest advantage of conservation

agriculture over conventional farming methods (Knowler

& Bradshaw, 2007)


Why focus on women?

➢Women’s involvement in agriculture is 75%-95%

➢In South Asia, women are key partners in securing HH

food and nutrition security (Ramachandran, 2007)

➢Feminisation of agriculture due to outmigration of men

from agriculture to industry in pursuit of higher paying jobs

(Vepa, 2005)

➢Mechanisation (e.g. the use of

tractor) - associated with male

power and domination over

farm women (Saugeres, 2002)


SRFSI Overview▪ Main technologies:

• Direct seeded rice (zero tillage or strip tillage), wheat & maize

• Weed & nutrient management

• Mechanical rice transplanter/Unpuddled transplanted rice

• Crop intensification – more intensive rotations – intercropping

▪ Other technologies:

• Bed planting

• Laser levelling

• Direct seeded crop

6


Women Participation in SRFSI

6

May 2015 - April 2016 May 2016 - April 2017

Male Female Joint Total Male Female Joint Total

Count

Nepal 1387 647 173 2207 511 306 162 979

India 2664 1064 284 4012 7587 3262 8203 19052

Bangladesh 4761 2060 86 6907 4303 1895 197 6395

Total 8812 3771 543 13126 12401 5463 8562 26426

Percent

Nepal 63% 29% 8% 52% 31% 17%

India 66% 27% 7% 40% 17% 43%

Bangladesh 69% 30% 1% 67% 30% 3%


Case Study 1: Sunsari, Nepal▪ Household head: wife (49)

▪ Technology used: zero tillage; chemical

weed control; improved varieties,

mechanical rice transplanter

▪ Benefits: increase in irrigation and labour efficiency;

decrease in tillage and production cost; saved time;

reduced drudgery among women farmers;

▪ Challenges: residue management; lack of technical

knowledge on weed management; irrigation problem

▪ Impact: saved water use by 30%; saved money from

irrigation, labour and tillage; made additional loan

repayment6


Case Study 2: Dhanusha, Nepal▪ Household head: wife (41)

▪ Technology used: zero tillage – wheat

and rice; puddled and unpuddled rice

▪ Benefits: cost saving; less labour; reduced pest incidence;

increased yield

▪ Challenges: lack of quality herbicides; lack of irrigation

facility; heavy weed infestation; lack of skilled tractor

drivers

▪ Impact: increased production; increased income;

supported children’s college education

6


Case Study 3: Madhubani, India▪ Household head: wife (45)

▪ Technology used: zero tillage - wheat

▪ Benefits: reduced input cost; increased yield

▪ Challenges: (none mentioned)

▪ Impact: saved INR 8,404 (AUD 167)

from input cost; earned additional

INR 15,184 (AUD 301) from

output sale; invested in

child’s education, gained respect

in society

6


Case Study 4: Coochbehar, India▪ Household head: wife & husband

▪ Technology used: zero tillage - rice and maize

▪ Benefits: less lodging tendency;

early maturity; less insect-disease incidence;

increased earthworm population;

reduction in land undulation

▪ Challenges: unavailability of skilled tractor

drivers; uneven seed distribution

▪ Impact: 9 t/ha yield of quality maize grain; improved

family’s standard of living; ability to buy ‘comfort’ goods;

increased ‘status’ in the society

6


Case Study 5: Malda, India▪ Household head: wife

▪ Technology used: ZT-Lentil;

pest and disease management

▪ Benefits: reduce expenditure

on water, labour and fertiliser; can grow three crops

instead of two crops in a year;

▪ Challenges: (none mentioned)

▪ Impact: increased yield from 1.5 t/ha to 2.25 t/ha lentil

production; increased income by INR 75,000/ha (AUD

1,486/ha); procured better medical treatment for husband;

sent her daughter to college

6


Case Study 6: Purnea, India▪ Household head: wife

▪ Technology used: ZT-Wheat;

ZT-Maize, direct seeded rice

▪ Benefits: reduced input cost

▪ Challenges: uneven germination; unskilled tractor

▪ Impact: leased six bigha (7,800 m2); joined Aranyak, a PG

company (innovation platform); sold 200 qtl maize; earned

INR 10,000 (AUD 198) on top of maize sales; saved INR

4100/acre (AUD 81/0.4 ha) from production cost; sent her

three children to convent school

6


Case Study 7: Rajshahi, Bangladesh▪ Household head: wife (24) & husband (32)

▪ Technology used: unpuddled rice transplanting; improved

varieties; quality seed; recommended fertiliser dosages

▪ Benefits: reduction in irrigation costs; decline in pest

presence

▪ Challenges: less familiar with the technology

▪ Impact: increased financial solvency; self-sufficient with

their grain supplies; saved Tk 1500 per 33 decimal (AUD

25.61 per 1320 m2)

6


Case Study 8: Rangpur, Bangladesh▪ Household head: wife (38) & husband (45)

▪ Technology used: strip tillage; crop residue retention;

improved seed varieties; recommended fertiliser dosages

▪ Benefits: less tillage, labour and irrigation costs

▪ Challenges: uneven distribution of seed and fertiliser by

the machine; unavailability of the machine and its spare

parts; weed problem; shortage of skilled machine

operators

▪ Impact: increased financial solvency; earned additional Tk

6000 (AUD 102.44); saved Tk 3000 per 33 decimal (AUD

51.22 per 1320 m2)

6


Summary: Benefits▪ Increased labour efficiency; less labour; less tillage;

reduced drudgery among women farmers

▪ Increased irrigation efficiency; reduced water expenditure;

reduction in land undulation;

▪ Decreased tillage and production cost; reduced input cost;

cost saving

▪ Saved time; early maturity; increased crop intensity (can

plant three crops in a year)

▪ Reduced pest incidence; less insect-disease incidence

▪ Increased yield; less lodging tendency; increased

earthworm population

18


Summary: Challenges▪ Residue management; lack of technical knowledge on

weed management; lack of quality herbicides; weed

problem

▪ Irrigation problem; lack of irrigation facility

▪ Lack/unavailability/shortage of skilled tractor drivers;

unavailability of machine and its spare parts

▪ Uneven seed distribution; uneven germination; less

coverage; uneven distribution of fertiliser

▪ Less familiar with the technology

18


Summary: Impacts▪ Saved water use; saved money from irrigation; saved

labour and tillage; saved input cost

▪ Increased financial solvency; made additional loan

repayment

▪ Increased yield/production; quality grain; self sufficiency

▪ Increased income

▪ Improved family’s standard of living; supported children’s

education; ability to buy ‘comfort’ goods; procured better

medical treatment

▪ Leased additional land

▪ Joined organisation/association

▪ Increased ‘status’ in society18


Issues and Challenges1. Women participation in SRFSI. While women

participation shows encouraging trend, there is a need to

increase women participation to parity level across

countries, project sites and across activities

2. Improve capacity of women farmers. It is apparent that

the lack of skills in the use of CASI technologies – tractor

operation, weed management, and crop nutrition, can

discourage women from successfully adopting the

technology

3. Improve women’s access to resources. With the

exodus of male farmers and the feminisation of

agriculture, women should have better access to

agricultural resources – land, inputs, credit, and

technology18


Future Strategies and Actions▪ Set a target quota of 50-50% participation for both men

and women in future SRFSI activities.

▪ Bring activities closer to the household venue where

participation of women was relatively low

▪ Consider the women’s domestic and household activities

aside from farming activities in scheduling project activities

to improve the likelihood of participation by women

▪ Provide women trainers to encourage participation of

women

▪ Recognise male and female role along the value chain to

be able to provide appropriate support & capacity building

18


References▪ Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., Anderson, J. R., & Lien, G. (2004). Coping with risk in agriculture:

Cabi.

▪ Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K., & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable

agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,

363(1491), 543-555.

▪ Howden, S. M., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F. N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., & Meinke, H. (2007).

Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 104(50),

19691-19696.

▪ Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and

synthesis of recent research. Food policy, 32(1), 25-48.

▪ Ramachandran, N. (2007). Women and food security in South Asia: Current issues and emerging

concerns. In B. Guha-Khasnobis, S. S. Acharya & B. Davis (Eds.), Food Insecurity, Vulnerability and

Human Rights Failure (pp. 219-240). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

▪ Saugeres, L. (2002). Of tractors and men: masculinity, technology and power in a French farming

community. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(2), 143-159.

▪ Vepa, S. S. (2005). Feminisation of agriculture and marginalisation of their economic stake.

Economic and Political Weekly, 40(25), 2563-2568.

18


Thank you

Q&A

19

Education

ACIAR - IFPRI - Women and conservation agricultural tools -case studies from srfsi - Sofina Maharjan, CIMMYT