Evaluation of Rwanda climate services for agriculture through a gender lens

Evaluation of
Rwanda Climate
Services for
Agriculture through
a Gender Lens
Tatiana Gumucio, Ph.D.

Outline
I. Background
II. Objectives and Methods
III. Results
IV. Conclusions

Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture

• Farmer Promoters and Participatory Integrated Climate
Services for Agriculture (PICSA)
• Radio Listeners’ Clubs (RLC)
• 2016 - 2020
• Project goal -
Gender equity
Key interventions with smallholders

• Gender influences the decisions under women’s and men’s
control
– Through socially-ascribed roles and responsibilities
– Access and control over productive resources
• Land
• Farming equipment
• Types of livestock
Gender and climate services

• Gender influences the decisions under women’s and men’s
control
– Through socially-ascribed roles and responsibilities
– Access and control over productive resources
• Land
• Farming equipment
• Types of livestock
• Gender influences access to information channels
– Capacity-building
– Climate knowledge
Gender and climate services

• Assess gender differences in access to weather and climate
information and channels used for access.
• Assess gender differences in use of climate information in
farm and non-farm livelihood decision-making.
• Analyze gender differences in benefits from improved
management decisions.
• Assess effects of accessing and using climate information, on
women’s participation in household decision-making
processes.
2019 Qualitative evaluation: Objectives

Treatment
category
Definition
1. PICSA 2016 Participation in PICSA in
year 1
2. PICSA 2018 Participation in PICSA in
year 3
3. PICSA+RLC Participation in PICSA in
years 1-3 and
participation in RLC
4. Control Without participation in
PICSA or RLC
2019 Qualitative evaluation: Methods
• Focus group discussions and
semi-structured interviews
• 4 provinces = 4 agro-
ecological zones
• 1 men’s group & 1 women’s
group per treatment
category, per province
• Total: 32 focus groups & 24
interviews

Results: Use in decision-making

Crop management Women’s treatment
groups Men’s treatment groups
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Crop selection √ √ √ √ √ √
Variety selection √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Planting on time √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Other crop management
Erosion control √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Fertilizer and pesticide use √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Livestock management
Fodder preparation √ √ √ √ √ √
Build/repair livestock
shelter √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Reduce livestock √ √ √
Interventions promoted women’s informed decision-making
Interventions promoted women’s and men’s informed decision-making
Interventions promoted men’s informed decision-making
No association between interventions and informed decision-making for
women or men

Crop management Women’s treatment
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Crop selection √ √ √ √ √ √
Variety selection √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Planting on time √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Other crop management
Erosion control √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Fertilizer and pesticide use √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Fodder preparation √ √ √ √ √ √
Build/repair livestock
shelter √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Reduce livestock √ √ √
women or men

“The last season, they told us that the rainfall will be low. We
cultivated cassava because we were expecting that lower
rainfall.” (Women’s focus group, PICSA 2016, Eastern Province)
Crop management

• Women and
men both
involved in
fodder
preparation
• Men – more
primary role in
reducing
livestock

Perceived benefits Women’s treatment
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Increased yield √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Reduced crop loss/damage √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Income √ √ √ √ √
Food security √ √ √ √ √ √
Ability to cope √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Increased investment √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Confidence in planning √ √ √ √ √ √
Increased livestock
production √ √ √
Results: Perceived impacts
women or men

Results: Perceived impacts
women or men
Perceived benefits Women’s treatment
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Increased yield √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Reduced crop loss/damage √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Income √ √ √ √ √
Food security √ √ √ √ √ √
Ability to cope √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Increased investment √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Confidence in planning √ √ √ √ √ √
Increased livestock
production √ √ √

• Increased income and food security require additional farm
management: budgeting, saving money, storing food
– In comparison to increased yields and reduced crop loss
– Evidence of contribution of interventions (PICSA)
• Increased income through: improved money management,
ability to avoid farming losses, increased yields
Increased income and food security

• “Our kids cannot miss school, life has changed in general.”
(Men’s focus group, PICSA 2016, Eastern Province)
• “I can take care of my kid because of higher production from
the knowledge I obtain from the weather forecast.” (Female
key informant, PICSA 2016, Eastern Province)
Increased income – key purchases

• Interventions contributed to women’s:
– Increased ability to cope
– Increased farm investment
• Investment in inputs/labor to implement improved
practices
• Due to increased confidence in farm planning
• Interventions contributed to men’s increased livestock
production
Other perceived benefits

Women’s participation in decision-
making

• Interventions contributed to women’s enhanced role in
agricultural planning
• How?
– Enhanced climate knowledge  voice ideas on farm
management confidently  participate more in
agricultural decision-making
making

• In some cases, enhanced standing and recognition for women
as providers for their families
• How?
– Acting on information  contributing to increased
production
– “If it [plan] fails, even a child will not trust you and refuse
your ideas.” (Women’s focus group, PICSA 2016, Northern
Province)
making

• Progressive policies promoting gender equality in Rwanda
• Degree of gender equality existing in households prior to
interventions
Enabling environment

• Women and men are not homogeneous groups
• How to strengthen methodology – take into account how
other social differences interact with gender
• Further assessment of traits of women and men who do not
participate in interventions
Equity and inclusion

• Interventions enabled women’s increased climate-informed
decision-making
 Reducing gender equity gap in use
• Benefits
– Interventions contributed to increased income and food security
for women and men
– Increased capacity to cope and farm investment for women
• Women’s empowerment
– Interventions can contribute to women’s enhanced participation
in decision-making
– Recognition as providers
Conclusions

• Intervention: Promote more opportunities for women to
participate in PICSA and RLCs
• Research:
– How do women and men participate differently in PICSA
and RLC meetings
– How does participation contribute to increased climate
knowledge
Recommendations

• Assess which decisions are under women’s control and which
under men’s
 Ensure CS inform women’s decisions as much as men’s
• Incorporate women’s enhanced voice in agricultural decision-
making into the theory of change
Recommendations

Thank you!
Report forthcoming: Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Nsengiyumva, G., Kagabo, D.M.,
Birachi, E., Rose, A., & Munyangeri, Y. (2020). Rwanda Climate Services for
Agriculture Evaluation: Qualitative Analysis through a Gender Lens. CCAFS
Working Paper no. 315. Wageningen, Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program
on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Evaluation of Rwanda climate services for agriculture through a gender lens

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evaluation of Rwanda climate services for agriculture through a gender lens

Similar to Evaluation of Rwanda climate services for agriculture through a gender lens (20)

More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluation of Rwanda climate services for agriculture through a gender lens