CHAPTER 2.1: FOOD PRODUCTION AND FOOD SECURITY
protection issues are also becoming more pressing as factory farming becomes increasing prevalent. In many developing economies, conspicuous consumption of animal products, from leather to meats, by elite and upwardly mobile social groups has increased; such consumption can be interpreted as a symbol as well as a benefit of modernity and “development” (Dave 2014).
Animal rights have long been integrated with feminist environmentalism. Since the 1970s, notably in India, Oceania, the United States and Europe, women activists have constituted the primary driver of animal rights movements. Recent analyses conclude that women constitute 68-80% of participants in animal rights movements in the United States and the United Kingdom (Kruse et al. 2011; Lowe and Ginsberg 2002). Public opinion surveys reinforce these findings (Box 2.1.9).
Inland fisheries and aquaculture: Because aquaculture provides a highly nutritious source of protein and micronutrients, it is important for food security. Women tend to predominate in aquaculture (GIZ 2013; Baluyut n.d.). In India their work includes fingerling stocking, preparing and feeding fish, fertilizing and liming ponds, making and repairing nets, harvesting, and drying and marketing fish. In Bangladesh women are involved in raising fish in cages (Yadava 2014). However, aquaculture is associated with a number of environmental risks, including dependency on usually imported feed, fertilizer, antibiotics and other chemicals, as well as destruction of (or damage to) sensitive coastal ecosystems (IFPRI 2015).
In inland fisheries men tend to fish for cash, and women for sustenance. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo one study found that 60% of women’s catch is kept for home consumption compared with only 27% of men’s (Béné et al. 2009). Women generally use simpler technology than men in
near-coastal and inland fisheries. In parts of India they net prawns from backwaters, and in Laos they fish in canals (Diamond et al. 2003).
Engagement in open-sea and near-coastal fishing is highly gendered (see section 2.5).
Knowledge production and expert structures in agriculture: Across low and middle income countries there are significant variations in the share of total agricultural researchers who are women (Figure 2.1.4) (IFPRI 2015). In Nepal, for example, where more than 60% of the agricultural work force consists of women, only 13% of agricultural researchers were women in 2012 (Stads et al. 2015). The higher up the research ladder, the fewer women are found on the rungs (FAO 2011).
Gendered aspects of agricultural research also vary with the types of agricultural systems being researched. Often the perspectives and interests of women scientists, researchers and research managers differ from those of their male counterparts (FAO 2011). Evidence from Europe suggests that agroecological research may attract more women than men. For example, some male scientists from the National Institute of Research in Agriculture (INRA) in France have indicated that work on participatory agroecological plant breeding would not advance their careers (Levidow et al. 2014). The Peasant Seeds Network (RSP), created in France in 2003, has worked with a small group of plant breeders from the INRA on participatory plant breeding; all of the INRA scientists working with the RSP are women (Pimbert 2011).
In the last decade or so, there has been considerable expansion of research on gender and agriculture/food security by organizations such as the CGIAR consortium and on projects to support women smallholder farmers (CGIAR 2016).
Box 2.1.9: Gendered views on animal rights In a 2015 Gallup opinion survey of attitudes to animal rights in the United States, 42% of women said they
wanted the same rights for animals as for people compared with 22% of men (Mephibosheth 2015). In a 2003 survey, women were 14 percentage points more likely than men to support strict laws for treatment of farm animals, 19 points more likely to support banning product testing on laboratory animals, 14 points more
likely to support banning medical research on laboratory animals, and 10 points more likely to support banning all types of hunting (Moore 2003).
41
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
