CHAPTER 2.1: FOOD PRODUCTION AND FOOD SECURITY


agricultural activities constrain women’s access to extension services (World Bank and IFPRI 2010), 12- 22% of agricultural extension workers (district agents) on duty in 2009 were women (Davis et al. 2010). A later study in Ethiopia (Elias et al. 2015) highlighted the biased attitudes of extension workers and underscored linkages between lack of credit access and level of education: extension workers were encouraged to target resource-rich farmers, while women, who typically had poorer access to resources, were neglected. The authors recommend that differences between women and men in terms of productive assets be considered in the design of gender-responsive services, along with the importance of minimizing the effect of quantitative targeting of clients.


There is also inequitable access to these services in developed countries. For example, in the United States in 2011 systematic discriminatory behaviour by extension workers resulted in a class action suit being settled in favour of female farmers (Croppenstedt 2013). “Non- traditional” farming households (e.g. youth-headed households, same-sex households, or alternative communes and collective living arrangements) are often not recognized by authorities or agencies and thus cannot access the usual types of assistance. In many countries LGBT relationships are illegal and same-sex households face considerable social hostility. In a few places, traditional attitudes have begun to change: for example, the Department of Agriculture in the United States has introduced an LGBT liaison office (USDA 2015).


Unequal power in households: Farmers’ decisions about adopting new technologies and strategies for food production are usually made within the context of households, where women and men typically have unequal power. Household members often hold different views on priorities and on which decisions will be in the household’s interest. This is particularly true where adopting technologies and strategies involves higher risk, requires longer-term commitments or could have uncertain outcomes. The bargaining and decision- making power of different members of households therefore influence food production.


Strengthening women’s bargaining power and overall empowerment in households is important intrinsically, but also because equity in decision-making has been linked to positive outcomes with respect to food security and the well-being of children; women’s disempowerment, on the other hand, is associated


with poor nutritional outcomes for themselves and children (Ziaei et al. 2014; World Bank 2010).


Key trends in food production


Women and men in developing and developed countries engage in food production at all levels – from home gardening (rural and urban) through subsistence farming (ISCO 2004), smallholder farming and large- scale commercial and contract farming to industrial- scale monoculture farming and work on plantations (IPES-Food 2016).


Commercialization: In many developing countries, agricultural production is increasingly shifting from the household subsistence level to a larger scale, under the influence of either community-based co- operative models or large commercial schemes. This has changed the roles of women and men and influenced intra-household power dynamics. In most cases women are excluded from large-scale, industrial and contract farming because of their lack of secure control over land, labour and resources (IIED 2015; FAO 2011). Many of the cultural impacts of industrial agriculture have accrued disproportionately to women. The general shift from traditional food crops to high- value cash crops has been associated with men taking control of land, water and productive resources at the expense of women.


Evidence from Asia, in particular, shows that the trend towards commercial and export agriculture marginalizes and displaces women farmers (UNESCAP 2009). There is an increasing tendency to “find ways to integrate women into the globalization of food and agribusiness rather than questioning the structural politics of these processes”; they are typically allocated the worst paid jobs in commercial agricultural production and, while assuming the burden of domestic responsibilities, work extremely long hours relative to men in order to achieve “positive economic and well-being outcomes” (Joshi 2015).


Reliable data are unavailable on women’s involvement in the subsistence farming, gathering of wild food, and home garden production that are essential to household food security – activities which may fall outside


definitions of “employment”. However,


they are important actors even if they do not heavily dominate in these food production systems. Women’s


37


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241  |  Page 242