gender and farming systems · marshall macluhan. “who says what? ... the document propuesta...

Gender andFarming SystemsLessons from Nicaragua

GENDER AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Gender andfarming systems

Lessons from Nicaragua

Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations

Rome, 2005

GENDER AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is the specialized agency responsible foragriculture, forestry and fishery worldwide. FAO has the mandate to promote sustainable agriculture and ruraldevelopment, as well as food security, for the whole population. It extends the mission to assure that women– together with men – have access to necessary resources and receive support to obtain sustainable meansof sustenance and improved life quality.

First edition 1997

Second edition 2005

ResearchFrederic Devé, consultant: compilation and analysis of the projectinformation GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

National Technical Team of the project: methodological base of theNicaraguan’s project field work

Felipe Martínez Sánchez, consultant of the project: “Propuestametodológica de diagnóstico con enfoque de género en los sistemasde producción agropecuarios (1997)” (methodological proposal ongender analysis in farming systems)

CoordinationZoraida García, Programme Officer, Gender and Development ServiceGender and Population Division of the FAO

© FAO 2005

The designations employed and the presentation of material inthis information product do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations concerning the legal or development statusof any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in thisinformation product for educational or other non-commercial purposes areauthorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holdersprovided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in thisinformation product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: ChiefPublishing Management Service Information Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Despite the fundamental role of rural women in agricultural and livestockproduction, their contributions to achieving food security and sustainabledevelopment have been systematically ignored and undervalued. In recent years,however, there has been a growing interest in the incorporation of alternativemodels that take account of a gender dimension in development policies andguidelines.

The purpose of this study is to propose a conceptual and methodological frameworkthat integrates a gender perspective into the analysis of farming systems. The aimis to produce a reference guide for future rural development programmes andprojects. The first part of the study reviews systems and gender analysis within theagricultural context. The second part reviews the experiences of the Nicaraguanproject “Strengthening the Capacity of Women in the Management of Small-scaleFarm Production Units” (GCP/NIC/020/NOR). It sets out to identify themethodological findings, including the advantages and disadvantages, emanatingfrom that project’s valuable experience, rather than to carry out an actualevaluation of the project.

When applied to agriculture, systems analysis focuses on boosting productivity andproduction by studying the socio-economic and agro-ecological context, as well asreviewing farming systems. Gender analysis, on the other hand, examines the roles,activities, responsibilities, opportunities and constraints of each member of thecommunity under review, and attempts to achieve greater equality betweenwomen and men within their spheres of interaction.

Although the research areas of gender and farming systems analysis intersect atvarious points, each has its own scope. While gender analysis takes intoconsideration economic production, reproduction and community participation,farming systems analysis tends to focus on the technical and socio-economic aspectsof agricultural production. A conceptual framework, designed to combine bothapproaches, would therefore offer a better opportunity for grasping the complexand heterogeneous reality of peasant economies.

The overall goal of the Nicaraguan project was to stimulate and strengthen ruralwomen’s participation in the community and in agricultural development infarming areas affected by armed conflict in Nicaragua. When the project activitiesbegan, a conceptual framework combining farming systems analysis with genderanalysis was not available. As the project advanced, methodologies, tools, variablesand concepts were adjusted through a process of trial and error to constitute sucha framework.

In concrete terms, elements from systems and gender analysis in relation toagriculture were combined to produce appraisals in various communities andmunicipalities of Nicaragua. The aims of the appraisals were to illustrate and review

Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua iii

the local socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions; analyse farm productionunits and their strategies; design consonant farming system typologies; review thestatus of women in terms of their work and activities; and highlight areas that wereappropriate for technological improvement. The study findings and data were thenused to formulate recommendations and introduce innovations that are consistentwith the needs of the local population.

This document proposes certain methodological guidelines and instruments basedon the Nicaraguan experience, as well as a review of the conceptual frameworks ofsystems and gender analysis to be taken into account when analysing agrariansystems from a gender perspective.

Appraisals grounded in systems analysis incorporating a gender perspective allowus to understand women’s and men’s different roles and perceptions of their roles,as well as providing accurate information for tailoring activities to specific needs.The objective is to look at the farm family production unit from the standpoint ofgender roles within the spheres of production, reproduction and communityparticipation, highlighting the division of labour, access to resources, participationin decision-making, and felt needs and priorities.

The two steps in the process entail carrying out appraisals first at the municipalitylevel and then at the community level, choosing methodological guidelines, toolsand variables in line with the specific objectives of the study. The activeparticipation of community members in gathering and reviewing the relevant dataand defining their needs is fundamental at both stages.

The microregional study provides an overview of the agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics of the area, a concrete understanding of women’s statuswithin the local context, and a clear idea of past and current trends in the agrariansystem.

The analysis of the community involves a number of methodological steps, rangingfrom an overview of the local history and geography to an analysis of the expressedneeds and priorities of the local inhabitants. Some important steps in the processinclude an analysis of community organization, a review of the local farmingsystems and their underlying logical sequence, and the identification of farmingsystem typologies, bearing in mind the role of rural women within the farmproduction unit.

Although the breadth and scope of the appraisals will obviously vary in accordancewith the depth of the analysis desired, any ensuing recommendations should takeinto consideration the various farming system typologies identified, thus ensuringthat models for technical improvement consider both the specific features identifiedand their diversity.

iv Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua

CONTENTS

Executive Summary iii

Introduction 1

I. Gender and systems approach: main considerations 1

1.1 Introduction: Agriculture, gender and appraisals 1Transformation: agriculture, gender and appraisalsTransformations in gender roles and appraisals

1.2 Systemic analysis 41.2.1 Background to the basic theory of systemic analysis1.2.2 Basic concepts of systemic analysis applied to agriculture1.2.3 Key aspects of systemic analysis applied to agriculture

1.3 The importance of gender as an analytical category 101.3.1 Historical background1.3.2 Concepts and gender roles1.3.3 Gender analysis1.3.4 Key aspects of gender analysis applied to agriculture

1.4 Some conclusions 16

II. The nicaraguan experience: presentation and lessons learned 17

2.1 Introduction 17

2.2 Appraisals and surveys conducted at the municipality level 202.2.1 The Rio Blanco/Bocana de Paiwas appraisal2.2.2 Review of Terrabona’s farming and agrarian systems2.2.3 Characterization of the municipality of San Ramón

2.3 Systemic and gender analysis at the community level 22

2.4 Introduction of innovations 24

2.5 Some conclusions 26

III. Guidelines for carrying outsystemic analysis with a gender perspective 28

3.1 Rapid agricultural and socio-economic surveyat the microregional or municipality level 303.1.1 Methodological steps and main variables

Zoning

Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua v

General status of women in the municipalityHistorical trends

3.1.2 Methodological guidelines and toolsCollecting baseline data and map-makingField visitsInterviews with key informantsPresenting the results and feedback from local bodies

3.2 Systemic and gender analysis at the community level 383.2.1 Methodological steps, main variables, guidelines and tools

Establishing contact with the community and the contact personsand forming a local works team

Baseline agrosocio-economic data on the community(“learning about our community”)

Social and gender characterization of the families in the community(“getting to know each other”)

Characterization of the organizations present in the community(“our organizations”)

Analysis of farming systems

Community problems and plan of action

General conclusions 55

Annex 57

Bibliography 61

vi Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua

Introduction

“Who says what, to whom, why, whenand how?” These questions sum up theissue of communication as expressed byMarshall MacLuhan.

“Who says what?”1 Prepared by anagronomist with a background insystemic analysis, this paper discussesthe incorporation of gender into theanalysis of farming systems.

“To whom” are these discussions andmethodological guidelines addressed? Torural development agents involved in thepreparation of farming systems, expertson the issue of women’s participation indevelopment, gender experts and thoseresponsible for rural development projectplanning, formulation, implementation,monitoring and evaluation.

“Why?” What is the purpose of thisdocument? There is consensus on theneed to integrate a gender perspectiveinto rural development programmesand projects. Experiences have maturedin this area; however, constraints stillarise – from the initial appraisal to thefinal evaluation – when incorporatingthe analysis and strategies to improvethe living conditions of rural womeninto the analysis and strategies toimprove farming systems.

“When?” Based on existing experiencesin preparing appraisals, among otherthings, it is now possible to reviewcertain problems that arise, learn usefullessons from them, and discussproposals for methodological andprocedural guidelines.

“How?” This document is divided intothree chapters. The first illustrates themain aspects of the relevant conceptualframeworks of systems and gender,discussing ways of combining the twoapproaches. The second reviews themethods used in the projectStrengthening Women’s Managementof Rural Production Units in Nicaragua,as well as the most significant lessonslearned from this concrete experience.The third chapter concludes with someproposals for procedural andmethodological guidelines that canprovide a useful point of departure forfuture rural development projects.

I. Gender and systemsapproach: mainconsiderations

1.1 Introduction: agriculture,gender and appraisals

Transformations inagriculture and appraisalsActivities defined as “developmentprogrammes” or “projects” involvingmajor financial, human, institutionaland technical resources at the local levelare generally designed to “improve theliving conditions of rural householdsand increase their agriculturalproduction”. These programmes andprojects affect the progress of ruralhouseholds and their production units.

Many agricultural developmentprogrammes and projects areunsuccessful because those who designand implement them know little of therural setting in which they operate.

Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua 1

1 This document has been prepared by the Women in Development Service of FAO. It is based on theexperience of the Nicaraguan project (GCP/INT/020/NOR) and methodological documents prepared bythe FAO project team in Nicaragua. Section three, “Methodological and procedural guidelines”, drawsheavily on the document Propuesta metodológica de diagnóstico con enfoque de Género en lossistemas de producción agropecuarios by Felipe Martínez Sánchez, June l997.

Often, the proposed solutions are basedon preconceptions rather than solidobservations of the actual situation atthe field level. Questions such as “Whenmight one specific cropping techniquebe preferable?” “What would be theeconomic impact on local farmers ofintroducing this or that technique?”and “What do we mean by anappropriate variety?” need to be asked.

Clearly, the answers to these questionsdepend on the specific local conditionssuch as soil type, climate, technologiesused, market threats and opportunities.In addition to these variables, ruraldevelopment agents2 should also beaware of other social factors, such as thestructure and dynamics of the ruralsocieties in which they work and towhich agricultural problems are related.Familiarity with the reproductionprocesses of farm production units, aswell as with the inner dynamics andtrends of the surrounding community,is also necessary.

The comparative failure of various pro-grammes and projects has produced asituation in which many experts nowinsist on conducting a pre-projectappraisal and analysis before any actionis taken. Understanding the local ruralsituation, current agricultural transfor-mations, agrosocio-economic dynamicsand changing patterns in rural produc-tion units is crucial if programmes andprojects are to have a significant andsuccessful impact.

An in-depth appraisal is essential indefining programme and projectobjectives. The value of implementation,monitoring and evaluation of resultsand activities in a project is highlysubject to an accurate interpretation ofthe situation under review – just as the

success of a prescribed cure in medicinedepends largely on whether the illnesshas been correctly diagnosed.

In other words, if a programme orproject is to improve the livingconditions of the target group, it mustbe relevant to the ongoingtransformations in the rural societiesand social groups involved. This meansthat the proposed changes orimprovements must be feasible withinthe local context, and compatible withthe felt and unexpressed needs of thepopulation. Relevance in terms of thesocial, economic and environmentaltransformations already under waymeans having at hand a broad andfundamental appraisal of the situation,and being aware of the overall issues.Overall, a clear and sharedunderstanding of these issues isessential if the planners, field officers,women and men farmers and otherlocal stakeholders involved in theproject are to work together efficiently,pooling their resources.

In recent decades, application of thesystemic approach in agriculture has ledto the use of a specific appraisal methodthat examines the transformationsunder way in rural societies and inagriculture. The appraisal focuses onfarming systems within the largercontext of “agrarian systems” or“development”.

The systemic approach is based on thecore assumption that each farmer acts inaccordance with a specific farmingsystem and family circumstances, whichare determined by the productivity andconstraints of the farm production unit.If family labour is abundant andunderutilized, but land is scarce, thefarmer will tend to favour labour-saving

2 Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from Nicaragua

2 These include planners, technical experts, field officers, extension workers, gender and developmentexperts.

technologies (giving a higher yield perunit of farm production), and willprobably also seek to engage in off-farmactivities to supplement the familyincome. If instead capital is available andlabour is scarce, the farmer will probablygive priority to labour-extensivetechniques (maximizing productivity foreach working day).

Furthermore, according to the systemicapproach, a detailed knowledge of thefarming strategies and practices of theproduction units must precedeproposals for specific technical changes.A clear picture of the socio-economicobjectives and farming characteristics ofthe various types of farm productionunits is essential to ensure that theinnovations to be introduced into thefarming system are consonant with itsresources and with its patterns ofdecision-making and behaviour. Takinginto account all these aspects increasesthe chance of farmers utilizing the giveninnovations.

The role of a systemic approach inagrarian research is to adapt therecommendations designed by researchcentres in order to transform farmhousehold practices and techniques. Astechnical or economic innovationsproposed for farm production units hadpreviously only very rarely provedcompatible with the varied and highlycomplex conditions of agriculture,3

from the early 1970s onwards, thetrend in agronomic research has been toapply a systemic approach.4

In the context of developmentprogrammes, the purpose of thesystemic approach is to formulate andimplement strategies designed primarily

to improve farming techniques andproductivity.

Transformations in gender rolesand appraisalsIn the last few decades, agriculture hasundergone important transformations.Parallel to this, serious questions havearisen on gender roles and relationships.The agriculture sector has been subjectto major technological, economic, socialand environmental transformations.Consequently, new social realities haveemerged, in both rural and urban areas.With reference to gender, there havebeen clear and significant changes in therelationships between women and men,and a remarkable change in the role,image and position of women in society.These changes have also alteredpatterns of behaviour and culture, aswell as the economic and socialcontexts.

Although the evolution in behaviouralpatterns and responsibilities inrelationships between women and menwithin the household and at work is stillslow, legislation increasingly recognizesgreater equality of rights for all. Theprinciple of equal incomes and equalaccess to education and other publicservices is increasingly widespread. Atthe same time, there is a growing femalepresence in the decision-making, policy-making, economic and institutionalspheres.

Rural development projects showed littleconcern for gender issues until the1980s. The usual “target groups” were“rural families” or “poor peasants”. Someprojects highlighted the productive roleof women, but primarily as an extensionof women’s reproductive role, while


3 Traditionally, such innovations were based on research that focused on a “topic”, or they were purely“technical” or “productivist”, proposing “technology packages” that failed to consider (or at least to givesufficient weight to) the specificities of the farm in question.

4 Based on such disciplines as geography, anthropology, economics and agronomy, and drawing on differentschools of thought (from the English-, French- and Spanish-speaking spheres).

others had women-oriented components,but ignored the dynamic evolution ofgender relationships.

In the last two decades, gender analysismethods have been promoted assignificant factors for studies andassessments of socio-economictransformations. It is interesting to notethat some of the components formingthe conceptual framework of thegender analysis approach, i.e. thecriterion for equality in gender roles,are of relevance in the fields ofsociology and economics. However, inthis type of approach, the search forequal opportunities and theparticipation of both women and menestablish that the definition of sexshould not represent a condition for theaccomplishment of human rights andthat the division of gender roles shouldnot lead to subordinate relationships.Gender analysis has thus taken conceptsfrom other disciplines and tailored themto fit its own needs and objectives.

The analysis of gender relations is nowbecoming widespread in studies andappraisals of agriculture. Gender hasbeen incorporated as a collateral aspectof the different participatory ruralappraisals that have been promotedduring the past decade as instrumentsfor participatory planning at thecommunity level.

The strategic nature of adopting a genderperspective as a tool to promotesustainable development was recognizedby the United Nations during the FourthWorld Conference on Women, held inBeijing in 1995. The Beijing Platform forAction stipulated that economic growth,social development and environmentalprotection are objectives closely relatedto the progress of women. Women’s and

men’s active and equitable participationin development, and their equalopportunities, represent fundamentalaspects in the eradication of poverty andin achieving sustainable humandevelopment.5

In recent years, there has been a growinginterest in combining the approach tofarming systems analysis with that ofgender analysis. Unquestionably, thereare opportunities for mutual enrichment,as well as enhancing the effectiveness ofboth, by combining their separate fieldsof study and analytical targets andmethods. This paper is intended to be afurther contribution to the discussions inthis field by exploring ways of achievingthis objective and offering some practicaland theoretical suggestions for futureactions and research.

1.2 Systemic analysis

The analysis of farming systems isbroadly based on systems theory – atool that is applicable to any subject ofstudy (a living organism, a factory, aninstitution, a vehicle, etc.). It is worthexamining some of the main featuresand principles of the systemic theory,before looking at the systemic approachapplied to agriculture. The following aresome general guidelines that are usefulfor the study of any subject or object.

1.2.1 Background to the basictheory of systemic analysis

In L. Von Bertalanffy’s General SystemsTheory: foundation, development,applications (1976), a system is definedas “a set of components interlinked byrelations that confer upon them acertain organization in order toaccomplish certain specific functions”.Other similar definitions (De Rosnay,


5 United Nations. 1995. Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action.

1975) describe a system as “a set ofcomponents that interact dynamically,organized around an objective”.6

To analyse a system, it must first becircumscribed within certain boundaries,then its components must be identified,along with everything that, although notlying within the system (meaning the restof the world), is related to and conditionsits functioning. A farm family productionunit, for example, can be described as asystem combining human resources anda set of physical components utilized inthe farming process. In this case, thesystem’s boundaries are those of thenuclear family and of the territory wherethe farming activity takes place – thefarm, land parcels, etc. – and the variousfactors of production. The components ofthe system are the members of thenuclear family and the resources involvedin the farming process, such as herds,tools and implements, buildings, etc. Therest is what lies outside the system:neighbours, family outside the nuclearunit, the natural resources surroundingthe unit, the market supply and demand,public community services, etc. Beforemaking an in-depth analysis of thesystem’s components, it is necessaryclearly to identify its boundaries.

The analysis of a system combines thefollowing aspects:• Structural aspects: a description and

study of its components, organization,and complexity. In the aboveexample, the structural aspects wouldbe the rural family; land, water,wooded areas and other naturalresources to which the family hasaccess; the spatial organization of thefarm production unit, etc.;

• Functional aspects: a description andstudy of the interactions andexchanges among these components,and of the respective roles that theyplay. In our example, such aspectswould be the type of work involvedin farming; the interactions betweenlivestock and cropped parcels of land;and the exchanges or flows amonglivestock, crop production, etc;

• Dynamic aspects: the study of howthe system as a whole is evolving,including its components and theirinterrelations. In the aforementio-ned example, this would includechanges in family composition, bio-logical reproduction, livelihoods,income, economic reproduction(impoverishment, reproductionunder conditions of stability, expan-ded reproduction and accumulation,etc.).

A system can be viewed as thecombination of ranked andinterdependent subsystems, where eachcomponent can be analysed as aseparate system (these could belivestock and cropping subsystems inthe aforementioned example).

In short, the structural analysis of asystem entails studying its composition.This consists of the study anddescription of the system’s components,focusing only on a limited number ofsignificant elements.

The functional analysis of a systemexamines the relationships andexchanges among these components(i.e. the exchanges, interactions andmechanisms of regulation and controlwithin the components).


6 A system is a representation of reality: it is the outcome of modelling, the product of operationsanalysis and synthesis of the subject of study to learn more about its structure, functions and evolution.“The system is not the reality; it is the analytical and synthetical vision of the actual object of study.This vision (…) is subject to the objectives and disciplinary slant of the analysis” (Poussin, 1987).

Analysis of the dynamics of a givensystem identifies past and presenttrends in the system’s overall contextand transformations over time, takinginto account external influences. Suchanalysis normally includes a study ofhow the system relates to the outsideworld.

1.2.2 Basic concepts of systemicanalysis applied to agriculture

The various types of systems taken intoaccount when applying systemicanalysis to agriculture are as follows:• The agrarian system. Its boundaries

are those of a medium-scale (alsocalled “meso”) territorial unit, whichcould be a microregion, communityor watershed. The starting point ofthe study is the definition ofboundaries on the basis of physicaland territorial attributes. Its principalcomponents comprise the physicalenvironment (with its ecosystem,natural resources, infrastructure,etc.) and the local rural society (withits social groupings, institutions andso forth). The society utilizes andexploits this environment, modifyingthe ecosystem to meet its needs.

• The farming system. In this case, theconstraints of the system, at the levelof the farm or agricultural enterprise(smallholding, large estate, farmfamily production unit, etc.), arethose of the production unit,whether family, entrepreneurial orState-owned in nature. Its principalcomponents are the managerial,administrative and decision-makingbodies, as well as the means ofproduction present in each unit. Thelatter include: land, water, woodedareas, plant and animal geneticresources; inputs; farm tools and

technologies; farm labour (adultsand children, family members,community workers and salariedlabour force); fixed capital (buildings,tools, means of transport, machineryfor production, storing, processing,marketing, etc.); working capital (self-provided, formal and informal credit,etc.); and skills (technical assistance,education, agricultural extension,traditional culture and training).

Possible subsystems within the farmingsystem are the livestock subsystem atthe herd level, and the croppingsubsystem at the level of land parcels.Sequences of farming techniques called“technical itineraries” are applied inboth cases.

The agrarian systemThe set of components of the ecosystemand local rural society, and therelationship between the rural societyand the territories in which it operatesare referred to as the “agrarian system”.Reference to an agrarian system entailsa geographic unit (geophysical,administrative, etc.). The farmproduction units are subsystems of theagrarian system.

There are a number of definitionspertaining to the agrarian systemconcept. However, the most renownedis the one offered by Mazoyer (1985),which places the agrarian system as anhistorical and social artefact:


7 Other schools of thought, particularly in the English-speaking context, refer to the “circumstances” orthe “development context”, and a “farming system based on a given dominant crop association” (e.g.Andean potato-based farming systems). Systems concepts are more developed within the agrariansystem concept.

“An agrarian system is a historicallyconstituted and sustainable way ofexploiting the environment, a system offorces of production adapted to thebioclimatic circumstances andnecessities of the moment.”7

Although widely diffused, thisinterpretation of the agrarian systemhas been subject to several criticisms.For instance, while one argument seesMazoyer’s definition as referring to thesystem as a means of exploitation (i.e.viewed from a purely human andenvironmental utilization standpoint),another argument regarding theenvironmental and social dynamicsquestions the feasibility of obtaining asystem that is in equilibrium withcertain bioclimatic conditions andspecific needs. In other words, it isimportant to highlight that agrariansystem analysis provides anunderstanding of the environmental,economic and social trends involved, aswell as the ongoing transformations ofagriculture and rural society within amicroregion – in terms of its specificcontext and the factors influencing thatcontext. In this way, agriculturaldevelopment is perceived as the processof transformation of an agrarian system.That is, the process of change takingplace within the web of relationsbetween a rural society and the territoryand environment in which it operates.

To summarize, use of the agrariansystem concept facilitates theidentification and study of the dynamicsin which development programmesplan to intervene. The appraisal ofzones helps to understand ongoingtransformations, local agrarian historyand current trends that explain thepresent and future situations ofindividual production units.

The farming systemThe farming system should be under-stood within a micro-economic context,

as it refers to the production unit or agri-cultural enterprise.8

The system operates according to theparticular farming logic of the hou-sehold unit, pursuing its specific socio-economic objectives. Decisions concer-ning the management of the system areconsidered to be rational (assumption ofconsistency of the system), meaningthat the production unit mobilizes anduses certain means in a coherent man-ner to achieve the desired socio-econo-mic objectives. Such “logic” varies fromone farming system to another, accor-ding to the available resources, externalinfluences and the particular strategyadopted (e.g. survival with short-termhorizons, simple reproduction of theunit, accumulation, etc.).9

It is important to note that application ofthe farming system concept to a ruraleconomy, particularly when referring tothe farm family production unit,assumes that the units of production,reproduction, residence, consumption,accumulation and the like are identicalaspects of the system. In reality this is notthe case. Although they overlap to aconsiderable extent, they are rarelytotally identical. Nonetheless, in somecultural contexts, such as those


8 In this case “farming systems” and “sistemas de producción” refer to identical realities.9 The use of the concept “farming system” has been expanded to designate the farming system “types”

identified in a specific agricultural territory, in addition to a specific system of a given farm productionunit. The term “farming system” refers not to the simple microeconomic system of a given farmproduction unit, but to the groups of farms within a community that share certain specific characteristics.

“A farming system is the spatial andtemporal combination of certainresources derived from the labour force(family, paid workers, etc.) and variousmeans of production (land, water andirrigation systems, plant and animalgenetic resources, credit and capital,buildings, machinery, implements, etc.),in order to obtain different agriculturalproductions” (Dufumier, 1984).


prevailing in Latin America, social,historical, agrarian and religious sphereshave produced a high degree ofcorrelation among these aspects. Thefarm family production unit (FFPU)corresponds to what has survived of the“domestic production mode” (Sahlins,1972) or the “domestic agriculturalcommunity” (Meillassoux, 1975).Sahlins prepared a “domestic productionmode” model based on farm productioncharacteristics from a gender perspective.Main aspects of the Sahlins modelinclude division of labour by sex, the“introverted” circulation of domesticproducts, a predominance of the value ofuse over the value of exchange, and thefact that within the domestic unit,commercial exchange is ignored.

Referring to the FFPU and the peasantsector as the basis of out-migration forsalaried workers, Meillassoux points outthat “the domestic farming community,through its ordered capacities foragricultural production and reproduction,represents a form of integral socialorganization that has persisted since theNeolithic era, and upon which rests eventoday a major portion of the reproductionof the labour force necessary for capitalistdevelopment.”10

The cropping systemA cropping system is defined bySebillotte as the area covered by a landparcel that is homogenous in terms ofits crops and technical itineraries.Several cropping systems may coexist ina farm family production unit,constituting a cropping combination or“plant production system”.

The aim of studying a cropping system isto understand the patterns of plantpopulation (growth of crops, theirspatial distribution, crop rotation overtime, competition with weeds, etc.), thetechnical itineraries in use, productionrates, labour and land productivity, andcrop yields.11

The livestock systemThis subsystem refers to animalproduction activities. It consists ofgrouping all the animals together as aherd and applying to them all theelements of the technical itinerary, i.e.breeding, reproduction, animal healthand hygiene. For animal production it isthe equivalent of the cropping system forcrop production. Nonetheless, given thatthe time and population variables aredifferent, a herd may not be assimilatedto a land parcel or an animal to avegetable; they are analysed separately assubsystems. Therefore the existinginterrelation takes into account thecomplementary or competitive use ofresources or their general mutualcontributions to the system’s functioning.

The technical itineraryWith reference to crops, the technicalitinerary has been defined as the“logical, ordered sequence of techniquesby means of which the environment iscontrolled and made to produce”(Sebillotte, 1974). It comprises thetechnical operations and activitiesapplied to a plant or animal population(normally livestock and herds).Knowledge of the technical itinerarymakes it possible to choose betweenalternative methods that are appropriate

10 Meillassoux introduced the prospect of a simultaneous and parallel observation of the functions ofproduction and reproduction in FFPUs, granting equal importance to both. This opened up new waysof studying farming systems.Sahlins stresses the absence of commercial exchange within the peasant unit among members of thesame family. This continues to be a dominant feature of rural economies in developing countries.

11 In the English language literature, the cropping system as defined by Sebillotte is often usedinterchangeably with “cropping pattern”.

to the operation of the system. The rolesof rural family members and thetechniques used can be analysed todetermine how they fit and operatewithin the farm production unit, inorder to be able to design alternativeroles and techniques.

To summarize, within the systemicapproach applied to agriculture:• The agrarian system represents the

agrarian situation at a given scale,which is generally related to themicroregional level. It takes accountof the full complexity of the localrural society, with its ecosystem andensemble of technical, social andeconomic relationships that are esta-blished by the community underreview within and outside its ownconfines. The farm production unit,in turn analysed as an autonomousfarming system, is a basic compo-nent of the agrarian system (farmingsystems are therefore subsystems ofthe agrarian system).

• A farming system is made up ofvarious cropping and livestocksystems whose management andother decisions come under theresponsibility of the family. Croppingand livestock systems are ranked assubsystems of the farming system.

1.2.3 Key aspects of systemic analysisapplied to agriculture

The analysis of farming systems isapplicable to all types of agriculture. Ofparticular relevance to rural developmentis the “peasant economy”, with itscharacteristic “farm family productionunits” (FFPUs). From the standpoint ofagricultural production, FFPUs are theagricultural production units, while froma general social standpoint they areconsumption and accumulation units, inwhich all family members are bound in

the familiar economic dynamics ofconsumption/accumulation, which areconsidered an overall situation.

A preliminary phase of a systemicapproach usually involves a socio-economic and agro-ecological analysis ofthe area of intervention. The goal is toidentify the characteristic componentsof a specific municipality, watershed,administrative area, etc. in order toanalyse it subsequently as an agrariansystem.

The next step is to analyse the agrariansystem’s production units, which entailsdescribing and reviewing such units and,within these, the livestock and croppingsubsystems with their respectivetechnical itineraries. During this process,relatively homogenous broad categoriesof production units are identified,leading to the designation of typologieswith specific, case-by-case criteria.

Farming systems derive from the aboveanalysis, where the productive andsocio-economic logical sequence (alsoreferred to as “strategies”) of any of thevarious types of production unitsidentified can be deduced within themicroregional context.

Appraisals of this type facilitate theunderstanding of a hidden reality, theintroduction of technical and agronomicalinnovations, the reorganization ofexisting farming systems, or theincorporation of either alternativefarming systems or cropping and livestocksubsystems. The analysis is followed byexperimentation, demonstration andtailoring of the agronomic innovationsselected to the actual conditions at thefield level; this process is referred to asvalidation or verification. The final phaseis to monitor and evaluate the effects of


the intervention on farming productivity,income and environmental balance.

The analysis of farming systems asapplied to rural economies focuses onthe farm family production unit as awhole, without differentiating amongthe individual behaviours and strategiesof its members. Therefore, in thiscontext, technical recommendationslack the data and analytical basis topromote a balanced, gender-responsiveapproach within the FFPUs, whichtakes into account individual familymembers. One way of bridging this gapis to integrate gender analysis withsystems analysis.

1.3 The importance of genderas an analytical category

1.3.1 Historical backgroundDespite the indispensable socio-economic role played by women, theirfull participation in the developmentprocess and their opportunities tobenefit fully from such a process arelimited. One of the prime concerns ofthe various gender methodologies12 hasbeen to analyse this situation with aview to overcoming the aforementionedobstacles. Two approaches that deservespecial attention are the Women inDevelopment (WID) and the Genderand Development (GAD) approaches.

WID was one of the major outcomes ofthe Women’s Decade (1975–1985),which aimed at strengthening theproductive role of women in developingcountries. WID identifies women as thedirect focus, or target group, ofdevelopment programmes or projectsdesigned both to stimulate women’sparticipation in the productive sphere

and to bolster overall economic growthand development.

Despite the significant input of the WIDapproach to the analysis of women’scontribution to the developmentprocess, and the inherent constraints tosuch participation, during the 1980s anumber of methodological gaps becameapparent. The WID approach tends tofocus on the household as the unit ofstudy, leaving aside women’s statuscompared with that of men in otherspheres. The GAD approach produced asignificant shift in perspective; in thisapproach analysis of the position ofwomen starts off by analysing thecontext. Therefore, developmentpolicies and programmes need to takeinto account such conditions. Thisperspective of analysis highlighted theneed to focus on the roles andresponsibilities of both women andmen, to differentiate their participationin the decision-making process and tofoster changes in social structures,values and behaviour, in order toimprove women’s living conditions.

Gender-responsive analytical methodo-logical tools and concepts tailored to theGAD approach are now available.Particularly, but not exclusively, as partof the Socio-Economic and GenderAnalysis Approach (SEAGA) developedby International Labour Organization(ILO), the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and FAO. SEAGAproposes a systematic review of six rela-ted and socially relevant fields: theenvironment, economics, society, cultu-re, demographics, and policy-making.Its purpose is to provide a conceptualtool kit and practical lessons for resear-ch and action, with the goal of acknow-ledging and considering the functions of


12 Such as the Gender Roles Framework, the Development Planning Unit Framework, the Social RelationsFramework and the Feminist Economist Frameworks.

gender and enhancing equality betweenwomen and men.13

1.3.2 Concepts and gender rolesFAO’s Plan of Action for Women inDevelopment (1996–2001) definesgender and gender roles as follows:

In other words, gender refers to men’sand women’s social responsibilitieswithin society and in family contexts.These responsibilities can varyconsiderably within cultures and fromone culture to another, and are subjectto change.

Thus, gender roles are learnedbehaviours. Women and men in a given

society are each allocated activities,responsibilities and functions thatdefine their position within the group.These gender definitions are usuallyrelated to other variables, such as age,social class and ethnicity. Gender rolesare not immutable, and can vary as theresult of changing social conditions(FAO/ILO/UNDP/SEGA, 1997).

1.3.3 Gender analysisGender analysis conducted within aspecific social group is an instrument forstudying relations between women andmen by examining the activities,responsibilities, opportunities andconstraints regarding resources,decisions and the execution of personalactivities in the group under review.Essential questions in this type ofanalysis are: Who does what? When?Why? and For whom?


13 At the institutional and policy-making levels, a SEAGA framework seeks to promote systematic, gender-sensitive appraisals of all aspects and influences on social reality. At the field level, the goal is topromote changes in patterns of behaviour, and gender analysis of the activities and roles of theindividual, the family and the community. The idea is to promote a gender perspective among womenand men farmers, development agents, project planners and formulators, etc.

“Gender refers not to women or men perse, but to the relations between them,both perceptual and material. Gender isnot determined biologically, as a resultof sexual characteristics of eitherwomen or men, but is constructedsocially. It is a central organizingprinciple of societies and often governsthe processes of production andreproduction, consumption anddistribution.” (FAO Plan of Action forWomen in Development, 1996–2001.)

“Gender roles are the socially ascribedroles of women and men, which varyamong different societies and cultures,classes and ages, and during differentperiods in history. Gender-specific rolesand responsibilities are oftenconditioned by household structure,access to resources, specific impacts ofthe global economy, and other locallyrelevant factors such as ecologicalconditions.” (FAO Plan of Action forWomen in Development, 1996–2001.)

“Gender analysis seeks answers tofundamental questions such as who doesor uses what? How? and Why? Thepurpose of gender analysis is not to createa separate body of social knowledgeabout women, but to rethink currentprocesses – such as natural resource useand management, economic adjustmentand transformation, or demographicchanges – to better understand thegender factors and realities within them.Armed with this knowledge, it should bepossible to avoid the mistakes of the pastand tailor interventions to better meetwomen and men’s specific gender-basedconstraints, needs and opportunities.”(FAO Plan of Action for Women inDevelopment, 1996–2001.)

1.3.4 Key aspects of gender analysisapplied to agriculture

Gender analysis when applied toagriculture examines the roles playedby individuals (women and men) inrelation to the spheres of production(agricultural and non-agricultural), thesphere of reproduction, and the socialor community life of a specific group.Under this perspective, and in contrastwith the farming system analysis, thereis a review of farm family productionunits (FFPUs), giving the same weightto these three spheres.

Gender analysis applied to rural societieswith a focus on agricultural units makesa detailed evaluation of four pivotal orkey14 aspects in the areas of production,reproduction and social life.

It first looks at the division of labour bysex. Secondly, it analyses the access toand control over resources, includingtangible resources (means ofproduction, such as land and water)and intangible resources (such asknowledge). Differentiating access toand control over resources by gender isfundamental, because it affects andfrequently determines the gender roleswithin FFPUs and communities.Thirdly, it analyses the different rolesthat women and men assume indecision-making and managementwithin the FFPU and the community.

Lastly, it differentiates between practicaland strategic gender needs. Practicalgender needs are usually those claimedby women and men (but not families)in terms of their current and acceptedsocial roles. Neither the division oflabour nor the position of women insociety are questioned. These areimmediate needs perceived as such, andmay include water, health, the need tostrengthen productivity etc. Strategicneeds, on the other hand, are thoseconcerning women’s subordinateposition in society and the search forgender equality.


14 Research from the University of Florida, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),and publications by S. Poats, A. Spring, M. Schmink, H. S. Feldstein, J. Jiggins, etc.


Summary Table:Conceptual frameworks for farming systemic analysis and gender analysis

Conceptual and ideological roots

Farming systems analysis Gender analysis

• Systems theory

• Systemic research bygeographers, anthropologists,agronomists and economists onthe rural sector, farmingtechniques, rural society andthe rural economy

• Structural influences(Marxist and neo-liberal)

• Research development

• Sustainable development

• Principal schools:“agrarian systems and researchinto farming systems”

• Socio-economic andanthropological researchon home economics

• The feminist movement

• The Women in Development(WID) approach

• The Gender and Development(GAD) approach

• Discussions on equality andequitable power-sharing

• Sustainable development

• Main approaches: on genderroles, development planning;“feminist economics”

• Socio-Economic and GenderAnalysis (SEAGA) of FAO, ILOand UNDP


Marcos conceptuales de análisis según los enfoques«Análisis de Sistemas de Producción» y «Análisis de Género»

Scales and objects of observation


Micro-level• FFPUs as units of agricultural

production, consumption andaccumulation; FFPUsrepresented as farming systems

• FFPU economy

• FFPU agronomy: cropping andlivestock subsystems (landparcels and herds) andtechnical itineraries

• Possible technical-agronomicand economic changes

Meso- or intermediate level• The agrarian system, the

dominant general system ofagricultural production in theFFPU area and/or thedevelopment context at thecommunity or microregionallevel

• The social and technicaltransformations of agricultureat the community ormicroregional level (agrosocio-economic dynamics)

Macro-level• The decisive macroeconomic

institutional and agriculturalpolicy factors

Micro-level• The FFPU and the community

– gender and role relationships

• Workload division by sexin the FFPU: productive andreproductive

• Access to, use of, benefit fromand control over tangibleresources in the reproductiveand productive spheres

• Gender management anddecision-making in differentspheres

• Practical and strategic genderneeds

Meso- or intermediate level• Men’s and women’s

participation in institutionsand organizations

• Men’s and women’s access toservices (credit, extension, etc)

Macro-level• The decisive macroeconomic

institutional and agriculturalpolicy factors


Project cycle


• Analysis of agrarian systems ordevelopment contexts withinthe microregional context(meso)

• Analysis of farming systems(micro)

• Typologies of productionsystems, with their respectivesocio-economic logic

• Constraint analysis of farmingsystems

• Project formulation withidentification and introductionof agronomical alternatives oralternative farming systems

• Experimentation,demonstration and tailoringto actual conditions (validation)of the agronomical innovationsselected

• Monitoring and evaluation ofthe impact of these innovationson farming productivity, incomeand environmental balance

• Analysis of gender roles andwomen’s living conditionscompared with those of men inthe household and in thecommunity

• Formulation of activities toachieve some of the followingobjectives:

i) reorganizing women’s triplerole by reducing theirdomestic workload,increasing their agriculturalproductivity and improvingtheir participation inorganizational andcommunity terms;

ii) improving women’s accessto tangible resources (factorsof production such as land,water, labour, plant andanimal genetic resources,capital/credit) and theircontrol over these;

iii)strengthening andimproving women’s role inmanagement and decision-making at the FFPU andcommunity levels;

iv) meeting some practicalgender needs andformulating strategies forequity and equalopportunities indevelopment

1.4 Some conclusions

The fields of study relating to gender andfarming systems analysis tend to overlap.Although their scopes and objectives donot coincide, appraisals and fieldactivities combining the two approachesare possible. The purpose of such acombination is to coordinate agriculturalproduction and reproduction analysis,taking into account their interrelationsand reciprocal conditional factors.

This exercise recognizes the need tobroaden the respective areas of study.On the one hand, by expandingsystemic agricultural research, it allowsan in-depth review of gender roles andan adequate integration of economicproduction, social reproduction and theorganization of social collective life. Onthe other hand, by linking genderresearch, it becomes easier to integratethe technical, economic and socialdimensions of agricultural production.

For this purpose it is essential toconsider FFPUs as true social andeconomic units, examining themsimultaneously as: production units(farm, non-farm and off-farm);consumption and social reproductionunits (including for procreation,education, recreation, etc.); andaccumulation units (in which membersshare a common economic system). Thepresent systemic overview visualizesthe existing interrelation between thesethree aspects.

Systemic analysis sees the rural sector inits complex dynamics, thus suggestingtechnical and economic recommenda-tions that are tailored to the specificitiesof the various typologies of farmingsystems. Consequently, comparativeanalysis and the construction of farming

system typologies are among the princi-pal tools of this approach.

At the same time, the development ofproduction unit typologies thatacknowledge gender relations as themain prevailing variable allows adeeper insight into the strategies of theunits under study. However, withinFFPUs there are gender-relateddifferences because women and menparticipate in different ways inagricultural production, reproductionand social life. Indeed, their differentways of participation vary from oneFFPU to another.

The two analytical approaches must becarefully combined in accordance withthe overall goal, which is generally toensure that project recommendationsand activities concerning technical andagronomic (and thus economic)improvements are effective andequitable for both rural women andrural men, and that they are linked tothe production systems and the ruralfamily unit. For this purpose, projectrecommendations should not onlydifferentiate farming systems fromsubsystems, but should also take intoaccount gender disparity, as well as theobstacles and constraints that exist inthe roles carried out by the householdmembers.

Finally, it should be noted that the “toolkit” approach and the generalduplication of data of this (or any other)type of appraisal are to be avoided, asboth lead to an automatization of theacquisition of knowledge, renouncingan understanding and analysis of thesituation, as well as wasting valuableresources, such as time, energy andinformation. Professor B. Sautter, ageographer and prominent figure in the


area of systemic analysis applied toagriculture, referring to such appraisals,among other methods, stated that:“There is no replicable formula for thescientific representation and analysis ofagrarian systems, and the same is truefor development practices, for whichsuch representation is essential …. Theworst temptation is intellectualresignation … an attitude that, claimingobjectivity and the elimination of thepersonal factor, draws support from aprocess of automating the acquisition ofknowledge, or action, in the ruralcontext …. To give priority tomechanisms, to rely on replication, is touse knowledge as a pretext forintellectual laziness, for the narcissisticpleasure of one whose desire is toremake the world in his own image ”(Sautter, 1987).

The experience developed in Nicaraguaby the national technical team of theproject “Strengthening Women’sManagement of Production Units”represents an effort to develop and putinto practice the analytical methodologythat combines both approaches(GCP/NIC/020/NOR 1994, revision). Theproject came to life in response to theneed to assist rural families, particularlythose affected by the war in Nicaragua,with an emphasis on supporting andimproving the living conditions ofwomen working in the farming systemsidentified in the project areas.

II. The Nicaraguanexperience: presentationand lessons learned

2.1 Introduction

Nicaragua’s main exports are agriculturalproducts, such as coffee, cotton, livestock,sugar and timber. Its agriculture sector isthe backbone of the national economy. In1995, this sector contributed about, 33percent of gross domestic product (GDP),and occupied 46.5 percent of theeconomically active population. Theagrarian structure reflects a history oflandownership concentration in thehands of a few owners. Despite attemptsin the 1960s to modify the distribution ofland, true agrarian reform did not takeplace until the 1980s (FAO, 1997).Confiscations of large holdings,expropriations and other measures gaverise to production cooperatives andfarms, which were paralleled by acooperative movement of small andmedium agricultural producers.

The Nicaraguan Government of the1990s, in tune with the changing timesand the international context,promoted policies to liberalize theeconomy. A structural adjustment andstabilization plan was enacted andcalled for a public investment plan anda drastic reduction in public services,accompanied by market liberalization.This period coincided with the return ofdemobilized former soldiers or guerillas,both men and women, to their place oforigin, as well as revision of the landreform movement of the 1980s.

This was the background to the launch,in 1992, of the preparatory phase of theproject “Training and Participation ofPeasant Women in Rural Development”,


which continued in phase one of theproject “Strengthening Women’sManagement of Rural ProductionUnits”. The overall goal was to improvethe living conditions of poor ruralwomen in central and northernNicaragua, in the regions of Matagalpaand Esteli. These regions had beenheavily affected by the armed conflict ofthe 1980s, incurring massive destructionof infrastructure, frequent massacres,incessant tension, displaced people, andso forth. As a result of the armedconflict, many rural households lostfamily members, which causedsignificant alterations to the familystructure. Although the agrarian reformthat took place in the post-war perioddid not discriminate against women,very few women benefited directly, andcomprised only 8 percent of thosegranted land titles nationwide.

Project profileDuring the preparatory phase, theproject focused on identifying theprevailing dynamics of the project area.Using a systemic approach, the

agrosocio-economic conditions werereviewed and described, and the ruralproduction units analysed. At the sametime, an in-depth study of social,institutional, family and productiveframeworks was carried out. This studyincluded the limiting factors andobstacles affecting the living conditionsof rural women.

In other words, the national projectteam selected the areas of intervention,promoted gender-sensitive participatoryconsultations, trained rural femaleleaders and identified specific technicaland agronomical areas for potentialimprovement. In this context, thecommunity work for the study wascarried out on the basis of the followingfocus points:• the agrarian situation of the project

area;• the technical and economic roles of

women in the rural economic sector;• the best way to approach the rural

communities in order to foster moreequitable development;

• the technical potential for genera-ting income more effectively andequitably.

Gender-responsive systemic analysiswas adopted to answer these questions,but it is important to state that the studyonly derives from the general guidelinesof the approaches presented in Section1. The process began with a number ofmethodological steps, which weregradually refined until a regular appraisalprocedure had been established for thecommunity level. The appraisal methodwas not established beforehand, butrather emerged as the outcome of ahands-on learning process in the fieldduring the execution of a project thataimed to combine both approaches inan operational, practical way. The


Nicaragua: aspects concerningthe issue of rural womenGenerally and traditionally, a woman incentral and northern regions ofNicaragua assumes the role of wife andmother between the age of 14 and 19.Of the registered unions, 54 percent arecommon-law marriages. Land traditionallybelongs to the man, as do the assets ofthe farm family production unit. In thecase of a separation, the woman isusually deprived of access to the meansof production, in particular land. Anestimated 34 percent of ruralhouseholds are headed by women – andthis proportion is higher among thepoor. The phenomenon of women-headed households grew during theyears of armed conflict in the 1980s.

available human resources and time, aswell as the tools, relevant variables andmethodological steps, had to be adaptedto the local situation and to the projectobjectives. Another fundamental aspectof the project was the activeparticipation of the local population inthe preparation of appraisals. Theappraisals led later to concrete andparticipatory action for development.

The project had three specific objectives:• to strengthen women’s participation

in the organizations to which theybelonged;

• to improve the working conditions ofrural women within the household;and

• to increase rural women’s incomeand agricultural production.

To strengthen women’s participationand organizational skills in order tomeet the first objective, the projectundertook two activities: training wasprovided for women leaders; and publicofficials were sensitized to genderissues, with particular emphasis on thequestion of landownership, particularlythe issue of granting women title toland parcels.

Concerning the second project objective,efforts were directed to reducingwomen’s dual workload. First, alternativetechnologies (domestic infrastructuresuch as water storage tanks, fuel-efficientstoves and laundry facilities) wereintroduced to reduce the long hours thatwomen devote to household tasks.Second, activities aimed at sensitizinghousehold members to gender roles wereconducted in an attempt to establishmedium- and long-term relations ofequality and collaboration betweenwomen and men. This was a three-stageprocess:

• discussions with women about theirperceptions, roles, abilities, etc., bothwithin the household and in thepublic sphere of action;

• discussions with the women’s malepartners regarding their identity asmales;

• discussions with both men andwomen regarding their shared lives,from the standpoint of theirunderstanding of gender identitiesand the acknowledgement of genderstereotypes that prevail in cultureand practice.

In pursuit of the third project objective,new farming alternatives wereintroduced into the FFPUs, consistentwith the local agro-ecologicalspecificities and existing farmingsystems, in order to improve nutritionand increase income. The target groupconsisted of women heads of householdwho are responsible for the overallmanagement of the FFPU, and thewives or partners of male farmers(whether or not they are responsible formanaging subsystems in the FFPU) whoparticipate to varying degrees in thefarming activities of the land plotsmanaged by the men.

In this framework, the projectintroduced experimental, demonstrationfarming activities and alternativetechniques for existing farming systemsto increase agricultural productivity.

In short, the project adopted threefundamental aspects of the combinedfarming systems and gender approaches:• characterization of the project’s

intervention area, and appraisals ofmunicipalities or microregions,integrating not only economic andproductive dynamics, but also socialand agro-ecological ones;


• participatory community appraisals(analysis of the major existingfarming systems and possible areasfor technical and/or agronomicalimprovement, showing the potentialto increase women’s agriculturalproductivity and income);

• implementation of the third projectobjective by introducing technologicalimprovements to existing farmingsystems, seeking above all to fosterincreased productivity – in order tomeet food needs and increase theefficiency of the productive activitiescarried out by women, in both theproduction unit and the household.

2.2 Appraisals and surveysconducted at themunicipality level

Meso-scale appraisals were conductedin the three municipalities where theproject was to be implemented (SanRamón, Terrabona and Río Blanco/Bocana de Paiwas). The studies can beconsidered as three successive stages ofa single process in which the methodsused, the relevant variables and thetools were gradually refined to combinethe systemic approach with genderanalysis.

2.2.1 The Rio Blanco/Bocanade Paiwas appraisal

The appraisal of Rio Blanco/Bocana dePaiwas comprised three stages thatadopted a mainly sociological approach.The first stage comprised a briefcharacterization of a community hit byviolence and dominated by smalllivestock agricultural producers. Theagro-ecological, physical and demo-graphic contexts were reviewed, as wellas the infrastructure, social services,general characteristics of agricultural

production and the socio-economicprofile of the local farmers. The secondstage examined the conditions of ruralwomen, their participation inorganizations and their status in theFFPUs with regard to their workloadsand access to land, inputs and income.For this analysis, typologies were drawnup to fit women in a variety ofsituations: single women heads ofhousehold or women with partners,owners of land or the landless, accordingto the size of the family farm. The thirdstage of the appraisal characterizedfarming systems on the basis of asummary of the technical and economicresults of case studies. The analysisfocused on the timetable of activitiesand on yields and capital return, from asystems typology standpoint.

From a methodological perspective, theappraisal contributed to:• an analysis of land tenure aspects, and

the social and gender stratificationrelated to them;

• the introduction of a new typologyderived from the combination ofsocial stratification (the socio-economic description of the FFPUs)with a ranking of rural women’ssituations (single heads of householdor women with partners);

• the identification of potential areasof agricultural production, wherenew techniques designed to improvethe living conditions of rural womencould be introduced, i.e.: home-reared poultry and “third-season”(apante) crop production.

However, the systemic approach andtechnical and economic analysis of theFFPUs were rather superficial, as theyfailed to visualize their heterogeneity,excluded the criterion of gross margin(global, and per work and area unit)


and failed to identify the constraints ofeach system and subsystem.

2.2.2 Review of Terrabona’s farmingand agrarian systems

The Terrabona appraisal, which waslimited in terms of time and humanresources, defined the selectioncriterion for the project area as beingwhere women’s organization was at itshighest, and presented a brief generaldescription of the area, with a focus onwomen. The case studies of women-headed FFPUs provided the basis for areview of the economic and technicalsituation of these units, as well as forrecommendations on agronomicalpractices. The advantages of theappraisal were that it:• utilized agrosocio-economic zoning;• used economic analysis criteria

based on the gross margin of theFFPUs, taking into account off-farmincome (constituting 40 to 75percent of aggregate income in thecase studies);

• proposed gender-responsive actionguidelines and technical improve-ments that emphasize technical trai-ning for women in small-scale cropsand livestock production and post-harvest management.

However, it should be noted that theappraisal was not based on typologies ofthe FFPUs or the farming systems, andthe descriptive part of the case studiesdid not provide a clear picture of thefarming activities, constraints andpotential of the systems under review.

2.2.3 Characterization of themunicipality of San Ramón

The characterization of San Ramónincorporated some elements of theother studies, which facilitated theintegration of gender into the systemicapproach.

The appraisal began with acharacterization of the generaldevelopment context (concerning theprevailing demographic and agro-ecological situation, including theavailable infrastructure and publicservices) and focused later on theagricultural characteristics. A land usestudy was conducted, which describedthe main local cropping and livestocksubsystems; a gender-sensitive reviewof the farming social sectors was carriedout (traditional, reformed and formerlystate-owned or worker-owned areas);and a clearer typology of farmers, whichcombined social stratification withfarming systems, was structured andbriefly described. Agro-ecologicalzoning of the municipality provided anoverview of its evolution andmicroregional trends.

The appraisal reviewed the situation ofwomen in the FFPUs, identifying theirroles and typical life paths. A newtypology (characterizing women as singleheads of household or as wives/partners)was also adopted for analysing women’sparticipation in farming, the division oflabour (for cropping, but not livestock)and the working days of these two major


Selected aspects of the Río Blanco/Bocana appraisal• Women’s estimated contribution to

FFPU agricultural production in themicroregion represented 20 to 40percent of the total labour forceutilized.

• Peak labour in the timetable occurredduring the “third” season.

• Credit at the FFPU level was grantedfor a specific farming item, butfamilies used it in accordance withtheir needs and those of the FFPU asa whole.

groups of women. Equally important wasthe identification of areas where womenare predominant, such as in the rearingof small livestock (pigs and chickens), theraising of annual or perennial crops(roots and tubers, annato, grafted fruits,soybeans and pigeon pea), crafts (basketsand pottery), and food processing formarket outlets.

The analytical description of themicroregion concluded with a review ofthe local institutions and organizations.Future areas to be covered at thecommunity level will be selected inaccordance with the extent oforganizational involvement, participationin decision-making and existingmunicipal structures. Guidelines foraction were formulated as a conclusion tothe appraisal.

2.3 Systemic and gender analysisat the community level

The analysis conducted at themunicipality level was purely exploratoryin nature, offering the project team theopportunity to design a methodologicalmatrix for the successive appraisals to beconducted at the community level.

The following are the methodologicalsteps that were followed in community-level appraisals:• identification of leaders and

informants to liaise between theproject team and the community;formation of the work team;

• participatory collection of basichistorical and agro-ecological data,joint preparation of the historicalprofile, map of the community andfield trips or field walks (this stagewas referred to as “learning aboutour community”);

• participatory collection of basic socio-economic data; during this stage afamily stratification using simple cardswas designed, followed by a census –carried out through a basic surveywith the use of “participatory appraisalcards” – of livestock and croppingactivities, domestic living conditions(water, electricity, cooking facilitiesand hygiene) and the organizations towhich rural women and men belong(this stage was referred to as “learningabout ourselves”);


Nicaragua: participation in agriculturalproduction and access to resources inthe project communitiesIn mixed households, women’sparticipation in productive agriculturalactivities varies. It is generally higher inpoorer households, and represents up tohalf of the labour force. In principle,women are not excluded from anyagricultural activity except landpreparation and the application ofagrochemicals for plant protection.

Access for women (both female heads ofhousehold and women with partners) tomeans of production or resources suchas land, credit, technical assistance,inputs, etc. is marginal.

Where organized women’s groups exist(made up of: female heads of householdand/or wives/partners), they often lack(or possess only precariously as loans orleases) direct access to land parcels to becultivated collectively.

Given that credit is granted preferentiallyto applicants with collateral such as land,women tend to be sidelined, and few arein a position to have loan requestsaccepted. Given that the local culturedoes not recognize women as agriculturalproducers, they are often excluded fromtechnical consultation meetings, trainingcourses and sessions, and technical orexperimental formal demonstrations.

• identification of the principal localorganizations during the organizationsworkshop (this stage was referred toas “our organizations”);

• participatory study of how farmingsystems operate and definition of atypology based on pre-identified far-ming system types, as revealed bysocial self-stratification and field stu-dies. Participants at the workshopson farming systems held in thisphase analysed gender-disaggrega-ted information on participation inthe workforce in order to measurethe work contributed by women andchildren (as well as that of men), thefarm calendar, the technical itinera-ries and the economic characteristicsof the FFPUs. Discussions and brain-storming on these issues led to thepreparation of three summarytables: a systems flowchart, asystems diagram, and a tableshowing who controls the resources;

• characterization of community issuesand identification of needs and theircauses during the needs andrequirements workshop; thetechnique of using cards for workinggroups based on FFPU types wasutilized for this stage of the appraisal.

The following are the activities thatwere carried out:• In the municipalities of San Ramón

and Terrabona (where intermediateappraisals were conducted), threecommunities were selected, based onthe active involvement of localwomen’s groups. Following theaforementioned methodologicalprocedure, an appraisal was preparedfor these rural communitiescombining a gender dimension withthe farming systems approach andsome elements of the participatorymethodology.

• These studies provided a detailedsummary of the historical agrarianand socio-economic context of thecommunities where the FFPUs underreview were located. They alsoillustrated the social stratification andmajor constraints (felt needs) of ruralwomen and men, and established atypology for the farming systemsidentified.

• Each farming system was reviewedin qualitative and quantitative termsfrom a gender perspective, and therespective farming sequences wereidentified.

• The economic findings were presentedin the form of activities (or subsystems)and as a global unit (i.e. the system asa whole). Production costs and associa-ted costs, overall gross profit, value ofthe work contributed by women andmen, gross profit per working day,income per unit of livestock or area,and the yield of the capital investmentwere all determined.

• Data on the division of labour withinthe system were disaggregated bysex (women/men, girls/boys) foreach activity (or subsystem) andglobally, in order to produce a clearand accurate overview of women’stotal contribution to agriculturalproduction (gross margin) and to thework carried out within the system.

• Based on a typological classification ofthe women and a stratification of theavailable farming areas, the appraisalsalso examined women’s status inrelation to the workday, access toresources and participation indecision-making and the community.The appraisals identified family needsand major community issues.

• Not only did the appraisals identifythe family needs, but they alsodepicted the main difficulties facingthe community.


The following are some observations andspecific constraints regarding the process:• Problems were encountered during

the process of introducing gendercriteria in the analysis of systems.The interest in cross-referencing thisvariable with social stratification andtypes of farming systems, inparticular for the creation ofappropriate typologies, causeddilemmas for the project team. Was aseparate category for womenwithout partners necessary? Or wasit relevant to look at women withoutpartners as a specific sub-groupwithin the general typologies ofthese systems?

• Absence of a quantification ofholdings in each category made itimpossible to determine theirrelative importance.

• The appraisals did not disaggregatethe technical and economicconstraints for each farming systemand category of women.

• Given that in some communitieswomen without partners representedone-third of the FFPUs, it becamenecessary to devise a special categoryfor them. This tactic enabled theappraisals and characterization of thefarming systems, as well as theanalysis and monitoring of theinnovations introduced, to be moreeffective. In the case of the two

communities in San Ramón, forexample, women without partnersconstituted a separate type of farmingsystem, and so a distinctiondemonstrated more clearly theimpact of the project.

• It should be noted that access to land(or land titling) was consideredseparately with respect to theintroduction of technologicalinnovations. Separating the issue ofland tenure from that of landimprovements introduced a conflictbetween two closely linked topics. Itis recommended that future actionslink these two variables. Anotheraspect that is noteworthy is that,while the project supported titlingand/or the regularization of landtenure (as this would render thestatus of thousands of women in theproject area less precarious), nospecific study or monitoring wascarried out on this issue.

2.4 Introduction of innovations

The appraisals highlighted the role ofwomen and their contributions tofarming systems in the communitiesstudied, and led to a more relevanttargeting of project activities.

Taking into account the data provided bythe appraisals, the project team set upon-farm experiments and introducedalternative techniques for existingfarming systems. Three types ofinnovations were introduced: barnyardactivities, such as poultry and hencoops,or growing food plants, or both,constituted over half the demonstrations.There were also plot activities or new crops,including fruit crops, pitahaya, passionfruit, chayote, pineapple anddemonstration plots of new maize


Nicaragua: women’s contribution tooverall gross profit and farm work inSan Ramón FFPUsThe contribution of “women withpartners” to agricultural production(gross profit) ranged from 12 to 25percent, with a low of 5 percent and ahigh of 50 percent. The remainder wassupplied by men and children. With veryfew exceptions, women’s contribution tolabour fell within this same range.

varieties, and livestock activities, such asthe introduction of a collective herd to belater divided and managed by thehouseholds.

The active participation of women (thetarget population) in identifying theirneeds in the various types of farmingsystems was essential in ensuring thatthe innovations introduced to improvetheir living conditions addressed theirconcerns effectively. During participatoryseminars on the identification of needs,women expressed what they deemedmost urgent and necessary in terms offarm and household work: to reducetheir heavy workloads for fetching waterand fuel by introducing improved stoves,home water storage and laundryfacilities. Indeed, the changes introducedwere adapted to the conditions of thewomen under review, and to the existingpotential of the family productionsystem. Recommendations thus tookinto account such variables as availableland and labour, and women’s controlover these resources.

Given the nature and size of the invest-ments in technical innovations it isimportant to stress that, from a systemicstandpoint, the proposed changes didnot have an immediate economicimpact, as the project was designed tomeet its objectives over the medium-and long-term periods. Indeed, althou-gh the economic potential of inten-sifying barnyard hen coops and home-grown fruit crops was excellent, itsimpact would only be visible after aperiod of four to five years. From a gen-der perspective, the impact of theproject had immediate effect, as genderroles were modified through the intro-duction of new activities (or the impro-vement of existing ones), directlystrengthening women’s roles and parti-

cipation. These changes, in turn, had ahighly significant technical and econo-mic impact.

Overall, the project should have drawnmore systematic profit from the wealthof analytical data available in theappraisals. Although it was possible todistinguish different typologies, thegeneral recommendations were not verydifferent among the households andcategories identified, and consequentlythe technological introductions werestandardized. Despite this, projectactivities did take into account, from agender perspective, the commonproblems expressed by the targetpopulation. The effects of integratingwomen’s and men’s priorities weretherefore positive.

Ensuring an adequate supply oftechnical assistance and extension forthe adoption of technical innovationstends to be a difficult task as men arethe usual beneficiaries of suchextension, credits and technicalassistance. The fact that changes aremade with and by women brings achange into the traditional pattern,which does not consider women withpartners (nor do they considerthemselves) as agricultural producers.

The lack of training in the area ofsystemic approaches among extensionworkers, and the relatively standardmodels proposed, proved to be aconstraint to the monitoring of agenuine systemic methodology duringthe stages of introducing andmonitoring technical change. Indeed,the models applied resembledconventional technology packages andthe usual extension and credit practicesof rural development projects, failing toconsider fully the inherent peculiarities


and interrelatedness within a givenfarming system.

2.5 Some conclusions

The appraisals provided valid data onthe situations and conditions that aremost commonly confronted andexperienced by farmers in general(particularly women farmers) in theproject area.

Based on these appraisals, the projectteam identified, defined and analysedemerging issues, as a combination ofthree related sub-issues:• Women’s weak organizational skills

are an important cause of the feebleinfluence that they exert on policyand strategy decision-making, andaffect women farmers working inthe agricultural sector at thenational, regional and municipallevels.

• The rigid cultural patterns concerninggender-based agricultural productionand reproduction roles impose aheavy domestic workload anddifficult domestic living conditions forwomen.

• The economic aspect of how incomesand agricultural production – forboth women heads of household andwomen with partners – can beincreased, independently of whethertheir productive responsibilities arevisible or invisible, mainly confrontsan issue of equality and the need toidentify technical innovationstailored to women’s needs. The coreof the issue lies in the structuralexclusion of women from gainingaccess to farming technologies, intechnical training and in theenhancement and diversification ofwomen’s farming activities.

The observations and lessons learnedfrom the experience of the project teamare summed up as follows:• The success of the appraisals and of

subsequent activities demanded achange in the behaviour, attitudesand thinking patterns of thetechnical experts involved. “Oneessential condition is to know andidentify with the subject (thepeasant woman or man), and withthe realities of her/his situation,language, culture and customs”.Consequently, further discussionsconcerning human resourcesinvolved in this type of analysisemerge. Indeed, a fundamentalprerequisite is a multidisciplinaryteam that is capable of combininggender analysis with farmingsystems analysis and participatorymethods. It is essential that theproject team have the motivationand dedication to produce work thatfaithfully mirrors the livingconditions, behavioural patterns,values and problems of the ruralfamilies studied.

• Effective community participation inthe appraisal process not only madethe local people more aware of theirgeneral situation and more able totackle their own problems, but alsomade the team members capable ofovercoming their traditional genderstereotypes in order to assignconcrete responsibilities to membersof the community.

• The appraisal had two major side-effects. On the one hand, theworkshops attended by men farmersincreased their awareness ofwomen’s role in farm productionunits – leading to a growingrecognition of women as economicagents in the community – andchanges were fostered in male and


female attitudes. On the other hand,the appraisal process strengthenedthe community organizations andwomen’s participation in them.

The Nicaraguan case study is of greatinterest from the standpoint ofmethodology. Despite the difficultiesencountered during the process, andthe presence of certain constraints, theparticipatory appraisals guided activitiestowards a genuine, in-depth andmethodical grounding as regards theactual situation, from a farming systemsand gender analysis perspective. It thusprovided concrete guidelines fordevelopment and for the use oftechnical working models with women.

The value of an appraisal is largelycontingent on the amount, detail andrelevance of the data collected; thedepth and rigour of agronomic,economic and gender analysis; thedegree to which recommendations areoperational; and how the appraisaldifferentiates by systemic typologies,and the positions held by women andmen within them. Recommendationsneed to ensure that the introductionand monitoring of new models are trulyfunctional, given that the basic criteriafor monitoring and evaluating theresults, effects and impacts of theproposed innovations will beformulated at this level.

The criteria used to define farmingtypologies must be simple and limited innumber, with a maximum of thefollowing three variables for crosscomparisons:• social stratification of holdings (no

more than three or four strata,perhaps based on the availablesurface area);

• type of farming system (avoiding thelisting of more than five types, ifpossible);

• unit typologies, based on the roleplayed by women in them (womenheads of household and FFPUs, orwomen with partners, with variousfarm production profiles, butavoiding mass aggregation).

Taking into account the aboveobservations when preparing appraisalscontributes to generating a betterresponse to the specific needs identifiedin each unit by the on-farm innovationsintroduced.

In this way, the recommendationsshould take into account the varioussystems and subsystem typologies, aswell as women’s position within them,in order to support the selection ofappropriate technical improvementsand extension models. Thus, thesemodels should consider the existinglocal diversities and specificities at boththe household reproduction and theagricultural production levels. This isnot always an easy task, given that bothinstitutional and community resistanceis frequently encountered when thegoal is to introduce changes that implynew patterns, methods, concepts and,ultimately, a new outlook.

Useful and relevant elements emergedfrom the analysis and discussions of theNicaraguan experience. These proposecertain methodological steps that willappropriately combine the systemicanalysis, gender approach and someparticipatory methods.


III. Guidelines forcarrying out systemicanalysis with agender perspective

This chapter introduces the elements,conceptual guidelines and tools thatderive from the implementation of theproject GCP/NIC/020/NOR in Nicaraguaand that may assist in the formulation ofother rural development projects. Suchconcepts and tools emerge from athorough review of the achievementsand bottlenecks of the Nicaraguanexperience, and the general guidelinesof the models introduced at thebeginning of this document.

The appraisals referred to so far aim toidentify the prime characteristics of thesocio-economic and gender situation ofthe target areas. Their objective is toidentify the main issues in thecommunities where project activitieswill take place and to formulaterelevant recommendations.

The methodology used to achieve theagreed objective consists in combiningthe systemic and gender approacheswhen conducting appraisals at the levelof the municipality, community or farmfamily production unit. In each of theselevels, the methodology reviews genderroles in production, reproduction andorganized social life, highlighting thedivision of labour by sex, access toresources, participation in managementand decision-making, and needs andpriorities as perceived by the people

involved. The systemic and genderapproaches feed into one another atvarious stages of the appraisal process.The analysis is carried out in threesuccessive stages:

• a review of the situation in themicroregion or municipality;

• a review of the community;• a review of farm family production

units (FFPUs).

At the level of the municipality, a rapidsocio-economic survey is conducted.This is followed by a more in-depthanalysis of the agrarian system onlywhere strictly necessary. The aim of thisexercise is to learn about the basicaspects of the historical, agro-ecologicaland socio-economic characteristics ofthe area, in addition to current trendsand dynamics. It also provides a basisfor the selection of communities forsubsequent analysis.

At the community level, the appraisalentails several methodological stepsthat analyse the local history andgeography, and the needs and prioritiesexpressed by local inhabitants. Thefarming systems and organizationsof local farmers are reviewed andexamined.

Knowledge of the historical dynamics ofthe environmental, economic and socialsituation is fundamental to under-standing current conditions andidentifying future trends.

The following diagram illustrates thecourse of action of the process.



Selection of themunicipality or

microregion

Rapid agriosocio-economicsurvey of the municipalityor microregion. Zoning,

situation of women, and thepresent disparitites in genderissues, dynamics and trends

SURVEYS ORAPPRAISAL OFMUNICIPALITY

Selection ofcommunities withinthe municipality for

future appraisals

Community appraisal stages:

• Establish liaison within community• Agroecological, socio-economic and historical aspects of community• Stratification into social groups• Associations and organizations within the community• Farming systems, typology and technical, economic and gender analysis• Community issues/problems, expressed needs and demands, and community planning

Selection of themunicipality ormicroregion

Diagram of appraisals at the levels of the municipality and region


3.1 Rapid agricultural andsocio-economic survey atthe microregional ormunicipality level15

The purpose of the rapid agriculturaland socio-economic survey is to obtainan overview of the area with itsprincipal environmental, agriculturaland socio-economic characteristics. Thisresults in a general description of theterritorial and social situation of themunicipality or microregion.

3.1.1 Methodological stepsand main variables

The result of this characterization is aglobal frame of reference, comprisinghomogeneous zones in terms ofdevelopment issues (referred to as“zoning”), an overview of the socialstructure and situation of rural women,and the identification of past andpresent trends. These three aspects areexamined on the basis of a restrictednumber of variables, which are selectedaccording to the most relevantexperiences.

ZoningThe objective of zoning is to identify anumber of areas that are relativelyhomogeneous, but sufficiently differentfrom one another in terms of agro-ecological and socio-economic aspects,and the problematic of ruraldevelopment. This exercise identifiesthe comparative advantages of thevarious zones and, most important,makes it possible to recognize the broadoutlines of the major developmentproblems or constraints faced by local

inhabitants. In practice, zoning is amapping exercise carried out bysuperimposing maps or sketches listingsome of the most important variablesrelated to agricultural and socio-economic aspects.

Agro-ecological and socio-economicaspects are the two main categoriesreviewed.

Agro-ecological aspects. The objective isto characterize the environment interms of its physical and ecologicalspecificities and the manner in which itsnatural resources (such as soil) areexploited. Available data on the relevantvariables are collected and quantified orreproduced pictorially in the form ofmaps of the geographical area.

The main variables are:• physical components;• biological components of the envi-

ronment (ecosystems);• land use.

Physical components– Climate (mainly rainfall, followed by

temperature).– Geology, especially topography and

local soil types (with numerical dataon the relief of the land; land bytopographies – flat, rolling, andgully; soil types; and the agriculturalproduction constraints inherent tothe topography and soil type).

– Hydrographic picture of themunicipality: watershed (orwatersheds) to which the communitybelongs; network of rivers, torrentsand sources of water; perhaps

15 Analytical coverage is usually selected through contacts and negotiations with representatives ofgovernment and non-governmental institutions at the department and, subsequently, municipal levels.These contacts are useful for obtaining a picture of the general situation in the area, the organizationspresent in the various institutional bodies, and the status quo of women and women farmers’organizations; compiling existing data; and obtaining the initial general support or backing from theauthorities or bodies consulted. The organizational and methodological steps are: defining the selectioncriteria for the municipality, and calling an advisory meeting with representatives of state institutions,NGOs, government agencies, unions and projects working in the area of coverage.


presenting data on low water, volumeof flow, etc. (if the region is relativelyarid, data on irrigation or potential forirrigation are important aspects).

Biological components and ecosystems– Natural or spontaneous vegetation:

primary and secondary forest, stubble,dominant species, etc., and relativeareas of importance.

– Cultivated plants: dominant annualsand perennials, dominant compositionof herbaceous species, natural andcultivated pasture and relative areas ofimportance.

– Fauna: this is particularly relevant ifhunting and fishing add significantlyto the diet and/or income of therural population.

– Ecosystems: general types ofecosystem(s) in the municipality,and/or major ecosystems present,their distribution within themunicipal territory, recent trends(deforestation, altered river beds,problems of contamination andpollution, etc.).

Land use– Identify the types and relative

importance of the main agro-ecological uses in the area, such asshifting cultivation, slash and burn ofsecondary forest or stubble, livestockproduction on natural pasture (withor without migration of flocks andherds), fruit trees and other types ofplantation, peri-urban orchards, croprotation, crops with fallow periods(and average length of fallowperiod), floodplain crops, etc. Usingthis data to define rural land use fora preliminary attempt at zoning, bysuperimposing the available maps.

Socio-economic aspects. The objective isto characterize society and the local

economy, identify the principal compo-nents found in its decisive factors andhow they interrelate based on the rele-vant indicators. Sources for such analy-sis include background documentation,institutions, key informants, etc.

The main variables are:• population;• infrastructure;• land tenure;• supply of inputs and consumer goods,

and marketing of farm products;• local development programmes and

projects;• civil organizations and religious

groups;• local leadership.

Population– Identify the general demographic

characteristics of the zone, withparticular attention to location andpopulation scattering or concentration,and obtain basic data on interethnicrelationships and their impact ondevelopment issues where differentethnic groups coexist. Thisinformation can be synthesized in apopulation chart.

Infrastructure– Gather basic data relating to existing

social infrastructure: health carestructures (hospitals, clinics, healthcentres, hospital beds and doctorsper inhabitant), education (schoolsand colleges, extent of schooling),public services (rural electrification,drinking-water and transport – roadnetworks, public transport, etc.),industries present in or having animpact on the zone, pick-up andsupply centres, etc. The data can besummarized in an infrastructurechart.


Land tenure– Compile data on the number of

agricultural holdings, the major formsof land tenure and the proportion ofeach, the stratification oflandownership by area, changesintroduced through agrarian reform,and trends concerning access to land.Compare and combine these datawith the major categories ofagricultural production for apreliminary categorization of farmers.

Supply of inputs and consumer goods,and marketing of agricultural products– Examine the links between the local

population and local, regional,national and export markets. Reviewthe conditions of access to inputs andconsumer goods and marketing ofproducts, bearing in mind that theseare decisive factors in farmers’decisions concerning what toproduce, because they vary accordingto the type of farmer, the zone and soforth. Specify the baseline prices forthe main farm products and therelative prices of the various itemsproduced, and examine how thesefactors affect local agrarian trends.The aim is to obtain an approximationof market trends in the zone,quantifying the main flows of tradeand verifying their impact on farmproduction and on the socio-economic behaviour of agriculturalproducers and their families.

Local development programmes and projects– Knowledge on development pro-

grammes and projects in the area isfundamental, including theirobjectives, scope of operations andthe extent of their human andfinancial resources. An appraisal bythe local authorities on the impact ofthese programmes and projects on

the local situation should also beincluded.

Religious groups and organizationswithin society– The aim is to ascertain the vitality

and initiatives of local organizations.This requires an inventory of unionsor other organizations, religious andcultural groups, associations, NGOs,etc. operating in the area.

Local leadership– It is important to identify local orga-

nization leaders and their sphere ofaction and to become familiar withlocal opinions, in order to establishcontacts with local leaders, learnabout the local changes they hope tobring about and secure their involve-ment in the pre-project investigationwork and, later, in the project itself.

By zoning, broad areas are identified, eachpresenting its own development issues, inaccordance with the criteria based on themost significant variables. There is nostandard formula for this step of themethodology, as it is the result of theappraisals and discussions prompted bythe hands-on experience of the team.Zoning will lead to the selection of theproject target communities for the project.

General status of womenin the municipalityThe objective is to obtain a generaloverview of gender relationships andthe status of women in the municipality,based on a select number of criteria.

The main variables are land tenure andaccess to land for women, livingconditions in the family (marital status,gender roles, shared workloads),productive and agricultural activities,reproductive activities, off-farm activities,

other income-generating activities,profile of relationships within thefamily, organizations in which womenparticipate, and project activities thatbenefit women.

Access to land and land tenure– Acknowledge and quantify, where

possible, women’s access to land andtheir situation with respect to landtenure. The following questionsshould be answered: To what extent,how, by what means (as groups, asindividuals) and at what point in timehave women been the beneficiaries ofagrarian reform? Equally relevant isto collect baseline data on theamount of land involved, its location,titling and eventual problemsinvolved in titling. Subsequently, thequestion of group ownership andtitling in the group and familycontext should be explored.

Family living conditions– Qualitative data must be gathered on

aspects such as profiles of typicalrural families, marital arrangements,the status of women with respect tomen, gender roles, responsibilitiesand behaviour common in the area,including the collection of data onthe proportion of women-headedhouseholds.

Agricultural activities – Present a general description of the

types of activities that women carryout, define the relative importance ofsuch activities, and evaluate to whatextent women are independent (takedecision in autonomy or withpartner, resource management, useof derived benefits).

Reproductive activities– General descriptive data (including

qualitative and, if possible,quantitative data) are required on thevarious types of reproductive activitiesthat are common in the area,including the general conditions andconstraints of such activities, and therelevant division of labour. Concreteaspects for consideration are thesupply of water, fuelwood or othertype of fuel for cooking, foodpreparation, cleaning and repairs, careand education of children, and soforth. Quantitative data can perhapsbe found in gender analysis surveys orappraisals made in the area.

Off-farm productive activities– Identify the types of off-farm

productive activities (such asindustrial, craft or tertiary sectoractivities), their relative importanceand the average income derivedfrom such activities.

Other income-generating activities– Sale of labour outside the FFPU (day

work on other farms, housework inother households, whether seasonalor permanent), the sale of goodsproduced by the women, such as:prepared foods, craftwork, etc. Theimpact of such activities on thefamily income should be evaluated(major, medium or marginal impact).

Profile of relations within the family– Give a qualitative description of the

dominant patterns of culture andbehaviour.

Organizations with female participation– Identify the unions, cultural,

religious, community and othertypes of organizations with femalemembership, the extent of women’sinvolvement, female leadership, etc.,using numerical data where possible.


34 Gender and Farming Systems. Lessons from NicaraguaR

API

D A

PPR

AIS

AL

AT

THE

MIC

RO

REG

ION

AL

OR

MU

NIC

IPA

LITY

LEV

EL

Met

hodo

logi

cal s

teps

Mai

n va

riab

les

to c

onsi

der

ZO

NIN

GA

gro

-eco

logi

cal

asp

ects

•Ph

ysic

al c

om

pon

ents

of

the

envi

ron

men

t: t

opogr

aph

y, h

ydro

grap

hy

and c

lim

ate

(esp

ecia

lly

rain

fall)

•B

iolo

gica

l co

mpon

ents

of

the

envi

ron

men

t•

Spon

tan

eou

s an

d c

ult

ivat

ed v

eget

atio

n,

fau

na,

pri

nci

pal

eco

syst

ems

•Lan

d u

se:

mai

n a

gric

ult

ura

l pro

du

cts

and t

hei

r ar

eas

of

cove

rage

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

asp

ects

•Popu

lati

on

by

sex d

ivis

ion

: lo

cati

on

, sc

atte

red o

r co

nce

ntr

ated

, et

hn

ic c

om

posi

tion

•Soci

al i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

: ro

ad n

etw

ork

s, i

ndu

stri

es,

pic

k-u

p c

entr

es•

Lan

d t

enu

re:

type

of

lan

d t

enan

cy,

acce

ss t

o l

and,

nu

mbe

r an

d s

ize

of

hold

ings

by

surf

ace

stra

tum

, an

ddiv

isio

n b

y ge

nder

of

larg

e ty

pes

of

farm

pro

du

ctio

n u

nit

s (w

her

e poss

ible

)•

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

pro

du

ctio

n m

arket

ing

net

work

(m

arket

ing

net

work

for

agri

cult

ura

l pro

du

cts)

an

d s

upply

of

inpu

ts a

nd c

on

sum

er g

oods,

pri

ce t

ren

ds

•D

evel

opm

ent

pro

gram

mes

an

d p

roje

cts

oper

atin

g in

th

e ar

ea•

Civ

il a

nd r

elig

iou

s org

aniz

atio

ns

and g

rou

ps

•Id

enti

fy t

he

most

im

port

ant

loca

l le

ader

s

SITU

ATI

ON

OF

RU

RA

L W

OM

EN•

Acc

ess

to l

and,

lan

d t

enu

re•

Con

dit

ion

s of

fam

ily

life

•Pro

du

ctiv

e ag

ricu

ltu

ral

acti

viti

es (

wom

en)

•R

epro

du

ctiv

e ac

tivi

ties

•O

ff-f

arm

act

ivit

ies

•O

ther

in

com

e-ge

ner

atin

g ac

tivi

ties

•Pro

file

of

rela

tion

s w

ith

in t

he

fam

ily

•O

rgan

izat

ion

s w

ith

fem

ale

par

tici

pat

ion

•

Act

ivit

ies

wit

h t

he

par

tici

pat

ion

of

and t

o b

enef

it w

om

en

HIS

TOR

ICA

LTR

END

S•

His

tori

cal

back

grou

nd o

f m

un

icip

al t

erri

tory

•D

emogr

aph

ics:

popu

lati

on

ch

ange

s an

d m

igra

tory

move

men

ts•

Far

min

g pat

tern

an

d g

ener

al e

volu

tion

of

the

envi

ron

men

t an

d n

atu

ral

reso

urc

es

•Lan

d t

enu

re c

han

ges

•Pre

sen

ce o

f an

d t

ren

ds

in p

ubl

ic s

ervi

ces

(edu

cati

on

, h

ealt

h,

tran

sport

, ag

ricu

ltu

ral

exte

nsi

on

, cr

edit

, et

c.)

•W

om

en’s

an

d m

en’s

par

tici

pat

ion

, an

d d

iffe

ren

ces

in t

hei

r ac

cess

to p

ubl

ic s

ervi

ces

Development activities that benefit women– Determine the various types of

projects/programmes that have animpact on women’s situation,identifying their objectives and theirhuman and financial resources.

The purpose of this analysis should not beto compile an exhaustive database, butrather to utilize qualitative data wherequantitative data are unobtainable. Thisphase is important because it is a survey,and therefore the extent of the analysis ofthe variables will be tailored to theamount of detail required.

Historical trendsThe objective is to characterize the zoneby means of a general analytical sum-mary of the recent history of the area,highlighting the most relevant aspectswith respect to local developmentissues. The major trends, constraintsand prospects that have a significantbearing on local development issuesmust be identified, determining thechanging picture of rural women’ssituation within the municipality. Inconcrete terms, a brief agrarian over-view of the zone is necessary, focusingon the most significant trends and high-lighting women’s access to public servi-ces, in this particular context.

The main variables are a brief history ofthe area, migratory movements,ecosystem transformations, changes inland tenure, public service trends, andchanges in women’s roles and genderrelations.

3.1.2 Methodological guidelinesand tools

The four types of tools used for theseappraisals are the collection of baseline

data and map-making, field trips,interviews with key informants, andpresentation of the data to localauthorities, with feedback from them.

Obtaining and processing the baselinedata on the relevant variables is theresult of an interactive processcombining the four methodologicaltools. The weight and relativeusefulness of each is determined on acase-by-case basis, depending on theexisting sources of information and thedepth of detail desired. A comparativeanalysis of the documentation obtainedfrom these different means will broadenthe discussion and identify local issues.

Collecting baseline dataand map-making The analytical work begins with a reviewof secondary sources and the processingof available qualitative and quantitativedata (monographs, university papers,development project studies, missionreports, scientific papers, etc.), whichare obtained from a systematic search ofall possible sources.16.

An in-depth zoning project requiresdetailed official maps of the area, as wellas recent aerial photographs andsatellite images, where available. In thiscase (particularly for appraisals ofagrarian systems and/or strict zoning),specific maps can be produced tocompensate data gaps or to summarizethe existing data.

If instead the intention is to elaboraterough zoning, it will be sufficient toemploy an official map that includesdata that are relative to studiedvariables by using graphs, symbols anddifferent coloured overlays.


16 Libraries and documentation centres in ministries, municipal records, social researchers or historians,experts on the area, municipal authorities, development project personnel, people working ininstitutions and organizations active in the area, etc. are all of use for this. Agro-ecological zoningby earlier projects can also be very helpful.

In both cases, the aim is to superimposemaps drawn to the same scale butcovering different topics in order tovisualize the correlations between thesocio-economic and agro-ecologicalvariables (see summary table on Rapidappraisal at the microregional ormunicipality level, page 34). Dependingon the issues that have emerged, theproject team delineates geographicalareas that face similar internalchallenges. Demarcation into separatezones is based on areas that are differentfrom their neighbours. It should bereiterated that first-hand experienceand a case-by-case approach offer thebest basis for selecting the criteria orcross-criteria for zoning. In some casessuch criteria could include populationdensity or abrupt changes in thetopography. In other cases, they couldbe the type of farm production crossedwith the social structure (e.g. intensivelivestock breeding, smallholding labourreserve, etc.). Help from key localinformants and the knowledge andobjectivity of the team carrying out theappraisal are essential for thecharacterization.

This study requires the identification ofhistorical trends and analysis of theevolution of reviewed factors, as well asa visualization of possible changes inthe maps.

Subsequent adjustments can be made tothe zoning, based on observationsderived from field visits, interviewswith key informants, and discussionswith community groups in the feedbackphase of the activities.

Field visitsBy crossing the different areas definedin the zoning map, it is possible to tracevarious routes, and field trips should be

chosen carefully to observe and analysethe heterogeneous features of the zone.

The estimated average time for a fieldtrip is from half to a whole day, and fieldtrip routes are based on the route tracedon the map. On the basis of what isobserved during the trip, notes are takenand a general outline of the landscape istraced out. The aim is to obtain a pictureand an analysis of the local landscape,selecting specific historical elements aswell as social and ecological trends, andaiming to build a first understanding ofits components and interrelations. Theagricultural practices of its inhabitantsand the basis of their development areidentified in this way. It is suggested thatthese trips be carried out in teams withtwo or three local people and keyinformants, who are chosen for theirfamiliarity with the municipality, theirability to explain local history andpresent local perceptions, and theircapacity to answer questions related toparticular crops, abandoned houses, theadvantages of a particular farm practice,etc. To complement the observations,short informal interviews are carried outwith people met along the way (farmers,women and traders) on the issues orquestions that arise during the trip.

The field trip is the first stage inunderstanding local issues (which isuseful for verifying the informationidentified during the previous stage)and their relationships with the variousways of managing the environment andvalorizing the ecosystems. It is ofparamount importance to understandhow local farmers utilize, with themeans available to them, the variousnatural resources of their environment.

The setting must be read gradually, i.e.first an overview or general outlook


must be obtained, and the various zoneswith their component parts should beintroduced later. Initially, it is necessaryto observe the main features of thelandscape (highlands, hills, valleys etc.),the major plant formations (woodedareas, pastures [rangelands], perennialand annual crops and crop rotation), thearrangement of the cultivated landparcels (shape and size, contourploughed or not), the types of crops, theimportance and age of crop residues andfallow lands, the quality of the grasslandsand the kinds and number of livestockreared. These observations should lead toa number of assumptions regarding thedifferent forms of exploitation. Suchassumptions ought to be confirmed orchanged during the subsequentinterviews with other informants.

During the field trip, a first outline orsynthetic drawing is produced to be usedas a visual tool for memory and analysis.

Interviews with key informantsThe primary objective of this type ofinterview is to supply data on: a) modifiedfarming practices; b) in accordance withthe available means of production, theecosystem’s potential; and c) theexchange relations (particularlyeconomic) through which farmers carryout their activities – types of agriculturalpractices, productive potential of thezone, marketing networks, prices, landtenure, credit, debts, etc.

The selected key informants orwitnesses of the land transformationsare often older, experienced people whoare able to report on the local history,hold some type of responsibility in thepresent or past, and have relevantinfluence in the social and farmingsectors. The surveys – based on theprofiles of those already interviewed –

attempt to uncover the causes of themajor transformations of local societyand ecosystems. The topics covered arechanges in population, crops, livestock,farming techniques and tools, theeconomic and social infrastructure,commercial and financial activities, landtenure, the ecosystem (erosion,deforestation, soil conservation,droughts and floods, etc.). Particularreference is given to gender relationsand to the role played by women in thedifferent social spheres. Regarding otherorganizations, interviews with theirleaders are fundamental.

The joint work of all the informants, themunicipality’s history in terms ofagricultural trends, the gender roles andthe position of women, and any recentchanges are reconstructed. In this way,there is a gradual perception ofmechanisms that could be key aspectsin originating transformations andinnovations in agricultural productionand techniques, the local pattern ofdevelopment, and gender roles.

Presenting the results andfeedback from local bodiesWhen the rapid appraisal is ready, theproject team presents the results to themunicipal authorities and bodies,including some of the key informants.During the oral presentation (illustratedby maps, diagrams, summary tablescontaining the basic data, etc.), adiscussion will cover the conclusionsreached, ameliorating the appraisal withany eventual corrections, newinformation or additional comments.

One of the main objectives of thefeedback session is to discuss the selectionof communities where the detailedcommunity and FFPU appraisals will beconducted. The selection criteria are


presented and discussed with themunicipal authorities, and the proposedcommunities are reviewed with peoplewho are highly familiar with them.

3.2 Systemic and gender analysisat the community level

The proposed methodology containselements drawn from various schools ofthought on rural development, inclu-ding the systemic, the gender and deve-lopment and the participatory develop-ment approaches.

Other assumptions for the application ofthis methodology are that: (a)development agents have basicbackground knowledge of the systemicapproach, and view participation as ameans of acquiring and managingautonomy and decision-making andgender as a social structure that definesthe participation of women and men inthe systems operation; (b) developmentagents will train the team liasing withthe community in the use of techniquesand will form part of the work team; (c)the groups of women and men withwhom the team will work have someform of organization and make up a unitthat can be defined as a community;17

and (d) there is backing for developmentprogrammes within the institutionalsphere, as well as within the officiallocal, regional and national ones.

The length of the data gathering processvaries, and depends on many factors. Itis worth mentioning the complexityand heterogeneity of the social,economic and agronomic realities of themicroregion, the extent to which ruralfamilies are organized, the degree ofcommitment of the work team, the timeavailable for the work team, and the

farm families targeted for directparticipation, etc.


The main characteristics of this type ofanalysis are:• Development professionals assume

that peasant families are aware ofthe issues confronting them and arein a position to participate indecisions concerning solutions tothese issues. This also implies thatthe most appropriate “facilitators”for the development process are therural women and men who aredirectly involved, and that thefundamental role of the professionalis to support actions agreed with thetarget population.

• The farm family production unit(FFPU) is a system of production andreproduction. Using the systemicapproach, the existing relationshipsamong the various components of theFFPU – human, biological, technical,etc. – can be visualized and subjectedto economic, gender and technicalanalysis.

• The family (i.e. the humancomponent) is the nucleus of thesystem. All members – men, womenand children – are included, andtheir respective contributions androles in decisions concerningfarming and reproductive activitiesare clearly identified.

• The criterion of gender analysis is oneof the most important variables for theoperation of the system, allowing theidentification, analysis and discussionof gender-related differences andinequalities inside the system andresulting from the stereotyping ofmen and women who function in it.These differences and inequalities areacknowledged to be a social artefactand not a biological reality, and thussusceptible to change.

17 For the purpose of the study, “community” means a group of people who have lived in a given area forsome years, share certain characteristics, constitute a sociological group with common objectives, andidentify themselves as belonging to such community.

Selection of the target areaNegotiations at the government, muni-cipal and community levels will lead tothe selection of the target area. Suchcontacts help to identify organizationswith representation at various levels,and especially to gain an understandingof the general situation of farmers’organizations, particularly those withfemale participation.

These discussions also facilitate access todata that are already on record, and theyalso obtain a sort of initial consent orcollaboration for the actual appraisal.Various criteria come into play in choosingthe target area: prime consideration isgiven to communities where thepopulation is already organized to someextent and where certain governmentbodies and/or NGOs are already active.


SYSTEMIC AND GENDER ANALYSIS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

Methodologicalsteps

Main variablesto consider

Contact with thecommunity, setting uplocal contact personsand a local work team

Methodological toolsand guidelines

• Introduction of peoplefamiliar with thecommunity

• Formation of the workteam (3 to 5 people)

• Introductory explanatory/training period

Basic community andagrosocio-economicdata (“learning moreabout our community”)

Agro-ecological aspects• Topography and

hydrography (relief,rivers and springs)

• Spontaneous and cultivatedvegetation, fauna

• Agricultural production

General socio-economic aspects• Population (households)

and migratory movements• Road and transport

network• Marketing of agricultural

products and supply ofinputs and consumer goods

• Presence and trends ofpublic services, such aseducation, health,transport, agriculturalextension, credit, etc.

• Development programmesin the community

Historical aspects• Community origins• Population trends and

migratory movements, sexbreakdown

• Ecosystem trends• Land tenure

• Map of the community• Field trips or field

rounds• Profile of community

history


SYSTEMIC AND GENDER ANALYSIS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL (continued)

Methodologicalsteps


Characterization of theorganizations thecommunity

• Various organizationsrepresented within thecommunity

• Participation and roles ofwomen and men members


• Communityorganization matrix

Analysis of farmingsystems

General: family activities andincomes, with a picture ofthe overall division of labourand responsibilities by gender• Agricultural activities and

income• Off-farm income and

activities• Other income-generating

activities• Reproductive activities• Peak labour times• Periods of family labour

underemployment

Cropping systems• Cultivated species and

varieties• Spatial distribution of

crops• Cropping techniques –

ploughing, fertilization,maintenance, harvesting

• Technical itineraries• Cropping timetable• Organic replenishment• Weed competition• Crop diseases• Utilization of crop residues• Yields• Conservation and

processing• Product quality

Livestock systems• Breeds and species• Genetic selection• Technical itineraries• Herd management

timetable

• Workday• Calendar of activities• Family budget: income

and expenditure• General systems

flowchart (to follow theanalysis of livestock andcropping subsystems)

• Technical itinerary(crops)

• Timetable with divisionof labour

• Access to, control ofand decisions overresources

• Technical itinerary(livestock)

• Timetable, includingdivision of labour

• Access to, control ofand decisions overresources


3.2.1 Methodological steps, mainvariables, guidelines and tools

The following describes the five-stepprocess to carry out a systemic analysisconducted at the community level. Theprincipal variables and tools available ateach step of the process are alsodescribed.

Establishing contact with thecommunity and the contact personsand forming a local work teamOnce the target area has been selected,the leaders and representatives of thevarious organizations and developmentprogrammes present in the communityshould be approached in order toidentify the groups of women and menwho will act as contact persons linkingthe project to the local population.

The contact persons should have areputation for being responsible andcommunity service-oriented. Theyshould also have time to carry out thegiven tasks. Reading and writing arealmost essential characteristics, althoughuse of this criterion is effectively a formof segregation, which could bias againstthe community representation.

• Forming and training the work team:– A small group is created of three to

five people who will become contactpersons (the number depends on thesize of the community). This willbecome the work team, which incollaboration with the project teamwill facilitate the appraisal process.The work team will require anintroductory training period thatincludes an explanation of the

SYSTEMIC AND GENDER ANALYSIS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL (continued)

Methodologicalsteps


• Livestock inventory by sexand age

• Animal housing andmovements

• Animal health andhygiene

• Buildings• Carrying capacity per unit

of area• Yield per unit• Processing• Product quality

Farming system types• Reproduction threshold

of farm production units


• Preparation of farmingsystem typologies

Community issues • Social and organizationalproblems, agriculturalproblems and problems ofoff-farm activities

• Identify and rankproblems

• Analyse and discusspriority problems


appraisal’s objectives and of thesubsequent activities, which followstages, as well as use of the tools foreach stage. After this, the lessonslearned at each stage of the appraisaland project are immediately put intopractice.

• Gender awareness workshops:Concurrently with the selection processfor the area, the creation of the workteam and the onset of the project,gender workshops should be held at thefollowing levels:– government and municipal level, for

representatives of the variousorganizations active at these levels;

– community level, for communityleaders, the work team, technicalpeople working in the variousprojects, and women and men fromthe community who participate inthe team.

The specific content of the genderworkshops will vary in accordance withthe level and characteristics of theaudience addressed. However, theprincipal objective is to raise awarenesson the importance of incorporating agender perspective into interpretationsof the current situation and developmentprojects as a mechanism to promotesocial, political and economic equalitywithin a community.

Baseline agrosocio-economic data onthe community (“learning about ourcommunity”)This stage complements the gatheringand analysis of agrosocio-economicvariables of the territory andcommunity history, circuits of the area,interviews with key informants and thegathering of information from thefollowing means.

Community map. This is a map of thecommunity, which is prepared by aselect group of women and menfamiliar with the area and features themost important aspects of thecommunity (e.g. communities, hamlets,services, etc.). This tool makes itpossible to locate the areas wherewomen farmers predominate, and toplace the community within its naturalsetting. The community map is alsohelpful in delineating the field visits fortrips, in line with the necessary dataand the objectives. The community mapcan subsequently be compared withother available maps (geological,official, natural resources, and landuse), in order to draw new conclusions.Micro-zoning at the community level,using the same methods as for themunicipal appraisal, is also useful.

Transect. The transect is a section map ofthe community area, designed to illustratethe heterogeneity of the terrain andlandscape, the economic and socialconflicts and the various types of farmingpractices. During field walks with two ormore work team members who arefamiliar with the community, informalinterviews with people met along the waywill supplement the data collected. At theend of the walk, the participants, with theassistance of the facilitator, will prepare apictorial map, or transect. The purpose ofthis tool is to depict the following: a) abrief description of the agricultural zone,including soil types, slopes, potential landuse, etc.; b) the way women and menrelate to their environment, throughdirect observation and interviews, locatingthe use of resources such as water andfuelwood and existing potential resources;and c) the general situation of farmingsystems with female participation. Othertools such as natural resource maps canalso provide useful data.


Historical profile. The work teamprovides a summary of the local historygoing back some generations andfeaturing major events. A summarizedmatrix may be used for this. This exerciseprovides a chance to discuss the causes ofeach change, and offers an overview ofthe sequence of development for thearea studied and its inhabitants.

Social and gender characterizationof the families in the community(“getting to know each other”)

Variables. Relationships and roles ofgender and social conflicts.

Instruments. Self-stratification througha simple survey based on appraisal cards.• Self-stratification. The purpose of this

exercise is to identify the differentsocial groups found in thecommunity. A table or matrix, whichlists all the families in the communityon the left-hand side, can be utilized

for this exercise, or a series of cardslisting the relevant information. Aselected group of inhabitants isrequired to outline what they believeto be the useful criteria for definingthe members of the community (thismight be male or female heads ofhousehold, land tenure, etc.). Thisinformation will then be utilized tocharacterize each of the local families.Some basic general criteria for arough approximation of the typologyof farm families will emerge at thisstage. A census of families in female-headed households can be obtained,as can an initial picture of theelements that differentiate farmingsystems as seen from the standpointof the farmers themselves.

Self-stratification is a participatorymethod that facilitates an analysis of thesocial differences within the community,based on how community members

Date Events Causes

Sample matrixHISTORICAL PROFILE OF COMMUNITY

Criterion

Family

Malehead ofhouse-hold

Femalehead ofhouse-hold

Ownsland

Rentsland

Collectiveowner-ship

Area1 Mz

Area1–6 Mz

Area15–50Mz

Sample self-stratification matrix

Mz stands for “manzana”, a Central American land measure. One Mz = 0.7 ha.

perceive themselves. This is not asociological review, but rather a groupexercise in perception and evaluation ofthe existing social differences within thecommunity. In some cases, a prior self-stratification workshop, including a briefsociological presentation, can later beadded to the rest of the information as auseful tool.

• Simple survey with appraisal cards.This is a participatory survey, basedon the use of appraisal cards (seeannex), during which a select groupof local women and men from thework team gather data on eachfamily, including demographic, farmproduction and other data related tothe roles of women in the areaunder review.

The results of the simple survey andself-stratification are used to define themajor categories of FFPUs in the areaand the number of families in eachcategory. This process also identifiesfarming systems in the community.Three major groups or categories arenormally selected:– FFPUs with very little land and

insufficient income to meet the basicfamily needs. The survival of theseFFPUs depends on other income-generating activities, such as salaries,pensions, commercial or craftactivities and seasonal migration;

– FFPUs where the farming systemsutilize all available family labour andmeet the basic needs without havingto resort to off-farm income-generating activities;

– FFPUs where the use of non-familylabour is crucial to output. Thesemay be managed by the owner or bya hired supervisor and are entrepre-neurial in nature.

Characterization of the organizationspresent in the community(“our organizations”)

Table or matrix of the organizationalstructure in the community.

• Table of the organizational structurein the community. A matrix or tableis used to summarize the data. Arepresentative group of local womenand men (working together orseparated by sex)18 will locate on thismatrix all the organizations,institutions and projects present inthe community, discussing theirwork, any problems that may havearisen in the course of it, the possiblecauses, and possible solutions.Depending on the extent of theorganizational conflicts in thecommunity, an open discussion of alltopics is organized, or individualopinions can be expressed on cardsfor later presentation during thediscussions.


18 Where women are not in the habit of participating actively in mixed meetings, it is better to discussseparately with men and women before the meeting with all participants.

OrganizationAction: What is

carried out?Women’s participation:

How?Results and

achievements

Sample community organizations matrix

Analysis of farming systemsGeneral instruments: a) typology of

farming systems; b) analysis of men’s,women’s and children’s contributions tothe system; c) global systemic analysisand farming systems workshops.

a) Typology of farming systemsInstruments. Summary of agro-economicobservations and data; and preparationof typology.

– Data summary and preparation oftypology. Differences arise within thecommunity (or within each zone of theterritory where a community has beenzoned) concerning use of theenvironment. These differences are theresult of local agro-ecological variationsand socio-economic disparities amongfarmers. The major categories ofagricultural holdings and farming systemswill emerge from a review of these gaps.

Construction of a typology facilitates anunderstanding of the social, technical andeconomic diversity of the community – itsnatural resources, specific constraints,practices, logical sequences, patterns ofchange, etc. The specific issues andproblems of the typologies identified canalso be discerned, as well as theirinterrelatedness (common problems intheir strategies and life styles, patterns ofaccumulation or, from a technicalstandpoint, patterns of diversification,similar constraints such as weeds, watershortages, soil acidity and insufficientgenetic potential, etc.). The typology canbe used as a starting point forrecommendations tailored to thespecificities of each problem encountered.

Depending on the level of disaggregationrequired from the analysis, and on theeconomic and social complexity of thearea, several types of farming systems

may be identified with significantdifferences among them. Four to five areusually ideal, as this avoids anoverdetailed and unnecessary analysis.

Summarizing the data entails under-standing the pattern of accumulation ofthe farm production units, and thesubstantial differences among farmingsystems. The first approximation of thegeneral typologies of farming units isthe result of the self-stratification andsimple survey (see Social and gendercharacterization of the families in thecommunity, page 43) and familiaritywith technical farming types present inthe community. This helps thepreparation of a preliminary outlineand a draft typology, by trial and error.

The methodology and criteria forpreparing a typology vary on a case-by-case basis. While the criteria fordifferentiation vary, the most commoncriteria employed are the economic sizeof the farm production unit, the amountof labour available and utilized, theopportunities for off-farm work andincome generation, the components offixed capital (buildings, investments,equipment, etc.), marketing conditions,land tenure, the dominant type of farmproduction (basic grains, coffee,livestock, etc.) and the sex and socialstatus of the head of the farm productionunit (single woman or man, one-parentor two-parents).

The validity of the draft typology, and aclearer picture of the various types ofsystem, is derived from a simplesampling of some of the farm productionunits – one or two for each type ofsystem – which is not necessarily basedon statistical criteria. The objective is toobtain indicative data through casestudies, examining subsystems (cropping


and livestock systems, FFPU inventories)without trying to produce statisticallyexact data.

The case studies, which must beexhaustive, analyse the technical andeconomic aspects of the farmproduction units, including theirrespective cropping and livestocksubsystems (see variables in thesummary table). It is important toinclude cases to represent all typologies,considering the gender differences.

Case studies make it possible to adjustthe elaborated draft typology wherenecessary, by introducing amendmentsbased on the observations made in eachcase. At this stage, the categories areverified and typologies are added oreliminated, depending on whether thecontrasts are strong, marginal orinsufficiently represented. The definitionof categories must be reviewed in termsof the gender variable in order to obtain

a clear picture of the logical sequence offarm production.

When the case studies are completed andthe major types of farming systems havebeen recorded, the number of familiesbelonging to each type must be counted,determining the number of female-headed households in each. In this way,an idea of women’s relative weight in thecommunity as a whole, and of theirspecific situation, is obtained.

b) Men’s, women’s and children’scontributions to the farming systemVariables: each family member’s respon-sibilities and work in the spheres ofproduction and reproduction in eachfarming system.

Instruments: workday; technical itine-raries; timetable of activities; access,control and decision-making in relationto the resources of the FFPU; globalsystems flow chart.


Samples of typologies used

System 1: small units of basic grains with a barnyard and land parcels, generally smaller than 2hectares, and sale of family labour. There are 15 such families in the community, including fiveheaded by single women. In general, women’s participation in fieldwork is high.

System 2: self-sufficient farm families with up to 20 hectares, growing coffee and rearing livestock,with structural commercial surpluses of basic grains. There are six such families in the community,including one female-headed household that uses occasional paid labour. Where couples arepresent, the woman’s activities are confined to the barnyard. Women’s contribution to field labour,in terms of labour force, is significantly less than that observed in System 1.

System 3: ex-farm labourers granted title to 7 hectares under the agrarian reform, growing basicgrains and coffee. There are 30 such families in the community, of which one-third are headed bya single woman. In the case of couples, the woman is responsible for the home, barnyard (backyard)and bean plot, and provides assistance on the other land parcels.

System 4: large, extensive livestock holdings of up to 300 hectares, with sharecropping of basicgrains and employment of labour year-round (day labourers and permanent employees),administered by a manager. There are two such farms in the community.

System 5: medium-sized entrepreneurial holding of up to 150 hectares, with intensive, high-techproduction of export crops (such as cardamom, coffee, cocoa, tobacco, certified maize seeds undercontract to a specific firm, broccoli, or some combination of these crops) and small dual-purposeherds of animals. Average bank debt, heavy use of hired labour, and high rates of capital yield. Thereare four such farms. The women do not work in the fields, but have a separate production of poultry(hens and eggs), and dairy products.

Each family member’s contribution to thefunctioning of the farming system isanalysed for each type of systemidentified. This exercise may either becarried out in the case studies, or beparticipatory. In the latter case, womenand men meet separately for the initialdiscussion. Women’s, men’s and chil-dren’s contributions are to be consideredan integral part of the farming system inboth the productive and reproductivespheres. In contrast to economicevaluations, which focus on productiveactivities, the utilization of tools such asthe workday and technical itinerariesclearly reveals the contribution ofwomen and men, broken down intodifferent tasks. A plenary meeting followsto discuss the contribution of each familymember to each type of farming system.This meeting can also be used as anopportunity to report back to the com-munity and to open the general debateon the community’s main problems.

Different instruments (matrices) areused at meetings where women andmen hold separate group discussions ona series of aspects concerning theirrespective reproductive and productivecontributions to the farming system.19

– Workday. This is a matrix in whicheach group separately identifies andrecords its daily work. Each of the tasksperformed throughout the day is listed,with the (approximate) time spent oneach activity and any help received.

– Annual work timetable. In this matrix,each group works separately to identifyand record aspects of farm productionand reproductive work that are carriedout on a monthly basis and throughoutthe year. This tool highlights criticaltimes and allows women and menfarmers to explain how they use theirparcels and backyards, how activitiesare distributed, and how the means ofproduction are employed, including thelabour force. The data derived from thistool can be represented by bar charts,thus facilitating comparisons betweenthe average workdays for reproductiveand farm production activities, permonth and disaggregated by sex.

– Technical itineraries. These are madeup of various matrices in which eachgroup working separately identifies thefieldwork, tools, inputs, workdays, androles disaggregated by sex as regards on-farm activities (cropping and livestock),


19 The groups have previously been separated not only by sex, but also in line with the representativefarming systems in the community.

Hour Activity

5–6 am6–7 am7–8 am8–10 am10–11 am11–12 am12–1 pm1–2 pm2–4 pm4–5 pm5–9 pm9 pm

Arises, lights fire, prepares mealFeeds childrenCleans kitchen, tidies house, feeds animalsGoes to river to wash and bathe children, wash clothes and fetch waterPrepares noon mealEats with younger childrenWashes up, cleans kitchen, feeds animalsFetches waterProcesses food, irons, sews or mendsPrepares evening mealFamily meal, tidies kitchen, attends religious serviceGoes to bed

Help

Older girlsOlder girls

Older girlsOlder girlsOlder girls

Boys/girls

Sample matrix of a woman’s workday for activities additional to those of thefarming system

off-farm activities (sale of labour, trade,crafts) and reproductive or domesticactivities (fetching water, collectingfuelwood, child care, buying and prepa-ring meals, education of children, etc.).

– Access to and control of resources anddecision-making. In this matrix, aftergroup discussions, each group separately

lists the various aspects concerning landparcel and/or barnyard output,including infrastructure, services, andbenefits deriving from outputs and fromresources in general. The goal is toidentify resource owners or other peoplewho exercise direct control overresources, those using resources, andthose deciding on their use.


Activity

Maize

Beans

Hens

Cattle

Etc.

January

Feed

Feed

...

Daily

Daily

April

Sowingprep.

Weeding

Care

Care

May

Sowing

–

Plough-

ing

2 hours

Parasitecontrol

June

Weeding

Weeding

–

Parasitecontrol

July

Spraying–

Spraying

–

–

...

–

Weeding

–

–

Nov.

Harvest-

ing

–

Vaccinate

Comm.

2 Mz

1–2 Mz

12

chickens

Sample matrix of the annual work timetable

Cultivo:Maíz

Área:2 Mz

Época:Primera

FieldworkWeeding

Slash/

burn

Fence

repair

Rotation

Sow and

fertilize

Bird

control

Spray

Clean

Fertilize

Stripping

Shelling

Harvesting

Storage

SeasonApril

April

April

May

June

June

June-July

June-July

June

August

August

October

October

N° people2

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

3

1

1

6

4

Duration8 days

4 days

4 days

3 days

3 days

8 days

2–3 applic.

16 + 4

2

2 wks

2 wks

2 days

10x1/2d

t*/men16 d/p*

8 d/p

8 d/p

3 d/p

6 d/p

12 d/p

20 d/p

4 d/p

12 d/p

20 d/p

t/women

3 d/p

8 d/p

10 d/p

t/boys

2 days

t/girls

10 days

Inputs

4 qq

Local

seed

Filitox

6 Hs

Urea 4 qq

Pest control

12 tablets

Tools

Rails,

stapler

Seeder

Sprayer

Machete,

hoe

Oxen, carts

Sample technical itineraryFARM PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES (2 Mz of first season maize)

* t = time* d/p = workdays per personNote: a similar itinerary is used for livestock production.

– Systems flowchart. This is adiagrammatic representation of afarming system. A flowchart is made foreach type of farming system. Eachgroup, working separately, locates thevarious components of the system on agraph (productive, reproductive andoff-farm components). Different-coloured

arrows (colour-coded in order ofimportance) are used to rank therelative importance that female andmale farmers give to each component.In addition to making it easier to seehow women and men participantsperceive the linkages among thesecomponents, this also highlights their


* t = time

* t = time

TaskFetchwater

Cutfuelwood

Cook

Childcare

Washclothes

Iron

Cleanhouse

Time N° people Duration t*/men t/women t/boys t/girls Input Tools

Technical itineraryPRODUCTIVE AND DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES

TaskLocal store

Salariedwork

Moneyfrom abroad

Time N° people Duration t*/men t/women t/boys t/girls

Basic data on off-farm activities

Resource

LandSmall livestockCattleTools/implementsCredit$/output$/barnyard output

Owns/Control

MWMMMMW

Use/Works

M-W-S-DM-S-D

M-W-S-DM-W-S-D

MM-W-S-DM-W-S-D

Decides

MWMMMMW

Sample matrix for access to and control of resources and decision-makingACCESS/CONTROL/RESOURCES DECISION-MAKING

M = men; W = women; S = son; D = daughter.

priorities with respect to income andexpenditure within the farming system.

c) Global economic analysis offarming systems, and farmingsystems workshopsInstruments. Matrix to calculate theincome and expenditure of the systemsand for reporting on the data.

– Global analysis of farm familyproduction units and subsystems. Thisprocess consists of creating roughbalance sheets comparing incomes andexpenditures for each type of farmingsystem. The first step is to calculate totalincome from each type of farmingsystem, adding all partial entriesconcerning cropping, livestock, off-farmactivities, etc. The next step is to identifythe “system outlay”, by separating farmproduction-related costs from non-productive activities related to thefamily, such as food and other similaritems (two matrixes should be created –see samples on page 50). The economicresults of all activities listed aresubsequently consolidated in a chart,thus encouraging discussions on thereproductive level of the family. Thecontext provides an opportunity fordiscussions of the technical andeconomic issues and the varioussurvival strategies adopted by thefamilies in the community, for eachfarming system. To study the economyof a rural production unit, in particular,in the case illustrated in this documentthe criterion of gross margin (incomeand expenditure) is used for theanalysis, as this simple benchmark isoften adequate for the purpose.Simplified calculations are advisable asthe main point of interest is the relationbetween inputs and outputs of thefarming system, and its effects on thequality and livelihood of the family.

– Reporting on the data. This consists of aplenary meeting with participants fromthe earlier meetings and other guestsfrom the community. The data gatheredby means of the aforementionedinstruments and on which the earliergroup discussions were based(organizational presence, technicalitineraries, and so forth) are presentedand reviewed. One of the main purposesof this plenary is to report formally to thecommunity as a whole on the datacollected during the process, highlightingthe relative (productive or reproductive)contributions of each family member tothe efficient operation of the farmingsystem as a whole. The results extractedfrom the different groups are compared.This should bring out the inequalities anddivergences of opinion at any given timefor any specific topic of discussion(minority opinions are no less importantthan those that are shared). It is alsoimportant to stress the existingintegration of the various components ofthe farming system, such as the soil’suptake of nutrients resulting from aparticular crop, the use of animal wastesfor organic fertilizer, etc. This meetingwill also present and discuss theeconomic calculations of income andexpenditure for the various farmingsystems.

In the earlier tables, which emergedfrom the experience in Nicaragua, thebasic criterion for evaluating income isthe gross margin income plus off-farmincome. This reflects the case of a poorFFPU that owns the land it cultivatesand has little fixed capital (thus hasminimum depreciation costs), does notuse credit (thus pays no interest onloans), has no direct subsidies, does notpay taxes, etc. Experience has shownthat this is frequently the most practicalconcept for making a basic analysis of a



Product

MaizeBeansRiceCoffeeSaltSubtotal

Dailyexpenditure

$

Monthlyexpenditure

$

First sowingexpenditure

$

Sample global analysis (simplified economic calculations based on gross marginand off-farm income) for each type of farming system

Farming systems expenditureExpenses for feeding a family (six people)

Production

SaleConsumptionTotal

Amount

30

10

Price

30

30

Total

900

300

$ 1 200

Income (gross margin) for farming systemFarming system income from 1 Mz of late-season sorghum

Service

Rent oxenTotal

Labour

Ploughing

Amount

3

Cost

50

Total

150

$ 150

Input

FilitoxGastoxinNailsTarps/plasticTotal

Amount

1 hs.

4 units

1 lb

6 yds

Price

55

2

5

12

Total

55

8

5

72

$ 140

Item

ElectricityClothingShoesSubtotalTotal

Dailyexpenditure

$$

Monthlyexpenditure

$$

First sowingexpenditure

$$

Additional family expenses

Total cost = 140 + 150 $ 290Gross margin = 1 200 – 290 $ 910


FFPU. For a more detailed analysis andfor comparing different types of farmingsystems, it is advisable to considerindicators such as gross margin per unitof human labour or gross margin perhectare.

If instead the intention is to determinethe agricultural income of the household(this is a strict necessity for an economicanalysis of agricultural holdings ingeneral, and entrepreneurial holdings inparticular), certain requirements such asthe capital depreciation, payment ofbank interest, direct subsidies, taxes,rental payments for land, etc. must bebrought into the equation. In this case,ad hoc tables must be drawn up toinclude the calculations presented belowfor the various types of farming systems.

After creating charts for each system,several general comparative matrices ofthe different systems are crafted, intune with the selected criteria (for thisexample: the total gross margin plus off-farm activities; in other cases, theagricultural income of the family unitcan be used). In order to calculate theworkforce productivity and the soil

productivity the gross margin perworkday or per worker and the grossmargin per hectare can be used. Thesystems can be compared on the basis ofthe synthesis of these data. It isparticularly advisable to compare theeconomic reproduction capacity withthe technical and farming patternsderiving from it.

Community problemsand plan of actionAn appraisal process, such as this one,provides the basis for the formulation ofa participatory community-wide plan ofaction. Nonetheless, it is necessary toorganize subsequent workshops for theplanning of strategies and concreteactions that are based on the availableresources, and not on false hopes,which will not be satisfied by theproposed action and will spoil relationsbetween the project team and thecommunity.

Instruments. Organization of commu-nity problems into a hierarchy; analysisand discussion of priority problems; andplan of action.

System

MaizeBeansCattleCoffeeHens

Total

Value of production Cost of production Gross margin

Summary of farming systems income and expenditure

Other activities

Small stores

Total

Contribution in $


• Hierarchic organization of communityproblems. The participants meet20 toanalyse the most deeply felt communityproblems in the farming, reproductive,off-farm, social and organizationalspheres. It is important to ensure equalgender participation and that the issuesidentified by women are not drowned inthe plenary discussions. When theproblems have been identified, the nextstep is to discuss and carry out theorganization into hierarchy (first ingroup sessions and then in plenarysessions). Cards with numbers from 1 to3 can be used, for example, with eachparticipant, woman or man, given threevotes. These discussions will also leadparticipants to explore the real causes ofeach problem. To rank the problems inorder of importance, the key indicatorsfor each need to be identified by thecommunity.21. If the existing informationfor each indicator is insufficient, thedecision of who, when and how tocollect these data should be taken. The

data on problem analysis and problemranking are then summarized inmatrices, as shown below.

• A lesson learned from experience. It isadvisable to tackle community problemsdirectly without any prior discussion ofindividual needs, demands andaspirations. It is essential to defineimmediately the key indicators for eachpriority, as these will help to focus on thedesired possible results, whose definitionwill serve as guides for monitoring andevaluation of the process.

• Community action plan by objective/problem. The first step in this process isto develop the concept of communityplanning with the female and maleparticipants. Previously defined priorityproblems and their respective indicatorsare subsequently compared with theinterests of the community and thecharacteristics/real potentials of theproject.

To calculate the agricultural income of a farmer and his/her familyBegin by calculating the present net value (PNV) for an average year. The PNV equals the aggregatevalue of final output less the value of all goods and services consumed.

VAN = PB – CI – Am., where GP is gross product for one year, IC is the value of the products ofintermediate consumption, and Am. is the economic amortization of the fixed capital, i.e. theannual depreciation of equipment and machinery.

The agricultural income of the farmer and his/her family is determined by adding the PNV to anydirect subsidies received, less interest on loans, rental payments for land and costs of daily andpermanent hired labour.

R = VAN + Sub. – Int. – RT – Imp. – Sal, where AI is the agricultural income of the farmer andhis/her family, Sub. is direct subsidies received, Int. is interest payments to banks or other loansources, RT is rent paid to the owners of the land, Imp. is tax paid to the government, and Sal. issalaries of non-family labour.

For a detailed analysis of the agricultural holding, it is advisable to calculate this income for eachfamily worker, per day worked, and per hectare, as well as the annual utility rate (income dividedby the total value of tied capital).

20 In certain cases it may be preferred to separate the groups by sex and family typology within the community.21 Indicators are data that help to measure the extent of a problem. They may be direct indicators,

i.e. directly related to a problem, such as low crop yield, for which the indicator would be the actualyield of this crop. Indirect indicators concern data that do not reflect directly on the problem but givean idea of the situation. They are helpful for such hard-to-quantify issues as low self-esteem among thewomen of the community, where one indirect indicator might be the participation of women in thevarious meetings and organizations.


The community action plan clearlyidentifies the objectives pursued,tackling each particular issue,identifying the activities associated witheach objective22 and specifying the whois responsible, the time (when), thestrategies and methods of action (how),and the necessary resources, all of

which is regrouped in a specific worktime schedule. The framework foridentifying possible solutions providesthe opportunity to discuss self-management with the team as thebackbone for self-determination,autonomy and equity in a developmentprocess.

Activity

MaizeBeansCattleCoffeeHensOff-farmactivitiesTotal gross marginFamily expenditureDifference

System 1

$$$$$$

$$$

System 2

$$$$$$

$$$

System 3

$$$$$$

$$$

The following is a sample summary table for the various farming systems, usingthe criterion of “gross margin plus off-farm income”.CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF FARMING SYSTEMS

Family reproduction level = system inputs vs. family requirement.

22 It is important to remember that certain actions can solve more than one problem at a time.For example, those actions with a direct bearing on women’s self-esteem may help bolster the extent towhich women participate in community organizations or play a more active role in decision-making.

Problem Single woman 1 - 5 MzM W

+6 MzM W

Total votesM W

Sample matrix of community problems and priority issuesCOMMUNITY PROBLEM RANKING

M = men’s votes; W = women’s votes.

N° Problem Principal cause Key indicator Solutions

PRIORITY PROBLEMSAnalysis and discussions

General conclusions

This document presents a number ofconsiderations regarding the theoreticaland methodological aspects involved inrural development activities (projectsand programmes). These considerationsare derived from a specific case in whichthe main aim was to monitor theongoing transformations taking place inpeasant economies. From a methodo-logical point of view, when the issue isaddressed, this can be summed up inone question: How can the genderperspective be mainstreamed into thesystemic analysis approach of the ruralproduction systems?

In the experience of the projectGCP/NIC/020/NOR, gender analysiswas not addressed as an exclusive orisolated study, or as a complement tothe analysis of the agrarian issue forwhich the action was intended. Rather,the construction of a methodologicalprocess started from a framework of thereality of the peasant economy and theFFPU as the object of the study. Theinterpretation of this reality arose fromprevious processes of observing thesocial, economic and technologicaldynamics that characterize thefunctioning of the units present in the

study area. On this basis, methods andtechniques deriving from a combinationof farming systems analysis and genderanalysis were selected as the mostrelevant approach to reflect that reality.The approach was then put into practicefirst by completing the appraisalsdescribed as the basis for theformulation of community plans.

It is important to note that severalexisting conceptual and methodologicalinitiatives attempt to tie the two keyissues of agrarian systems and gender inthe formulation of plans for agriculturaland rural development. In this case,after the revision of the generalguidelines, it was intended to examine anumber of instrumental aspects andgive a practical answer to questionsrelating to: (1) What is the conceptualframework for integrating these twoapproaches? (2) What process shouldbe developed in order to integrate agender perspective into the frameworkof a systemic analysis approach, bearingin mind the Latin American reality andtaking the Nicaraguan project as anexample? and (3) What methodologi-cal, procedural and research guidelinesemerged from this concrete experience?

It is also important to note theconceptual contrasts found between the


N° Activity Who? When? How? Resources

Sample matrix by problem ranking to create the community action planCOMMUNITY ACTION PLANProblems:Objectives:

farming systems and the genderanalysis approaches, because their aimsare different despite the interrela-tedness of their fields of study. Whenapplied to the agricultural system, thesystemic approach methodology startsby considering the rural familyproduction unit as an essentiallyproductive system made up ofsubsystems. The focus is on agriculturalproduction, especially on its techno-agronomic and economic aspects. Thecentral scope of gender analysis, on theother hand, is the study of genderrelationships in the spheres ofproduction, reproduction and com-munity life, as interrelated spheres. Sofar, a large number of efforts in applyinggender analysis to agriculture havefocused on the division of labour, theaccess to and control of resources,management/decision-making, andpractical and strategic gender needs.These are considered four of thefundamental pillars for achieving equalopportunities and access to productiveresources. Coordinating both approa-ches (gender and systems) will open thespace for mutual enrichment.

From the methodological and practicalstandpoints, the case of the projectGCO/NIC/020/NOR represents aconcrete example of the integration ofboth approaches. The farm familyproduction unit and its farming systemwere taken as the starting point“highlighting, in particular, the analysisof the different tasks integrated to theroles played by women in the familynucleus and that are conventionally notidentified as contributions”. Theanalytical focus was thus simulta-neously on the FFPU and farmingsystems and on women as the centralaxis of the family. Different genderroles, as well as the contributions and

responsibilities that both women andmen assume in the planning andimplementation of income-generatingand reproductive activities within thefamily, were also identified.

The approach applied is not intended tobe a tool kit for a participatory appraisal,nor an exhaustive methodology forsystemic analysis, or even a genderstudy of the districts. It represents anattempt to combine the two approacheswith the objective of producinganalytical methodological guidelinesthat ensure the technical interventionsin farming systems are of equal benefitto women and men, and hence to theFFPU as a whole. Indeed, the maininterest of this kind of appraisal is toguarantee that the technical assistanceand extension activities are morerelevant, and help to increase women’sproductivity and incomes throughtechnical and economic improvementsto farming systems. In conclusion, itmay be said that the main objective ofthis effort is to achieve the goal ofgender-sensitive farming systemsanalysis, which may contribute to abetter understanding of thedevelopment dynamics and of the rolesand contributions of women and menwithin those dynamics.



ANNEXParticipatory appraisal card

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD: ..........................................................................................................

DISTRICT: ..................................................................................................................................

SECTOR: ....................................................................................................................................

PREPARED BY: ..........................................................................................................................

I. GENERAL FAMILY DATA

MEN ................................................................WOMEN ..........................................................BOYS................................................................GIRLS ..............................................................TOTAL MEMBERS ..........................................

KNOWS HOW TO READ AND WRITE?

Husband ❑ Yes ❑ NoWife ❑ Yes ❑ No

II. FARMING

Property ownership

❑ Owner ❑ Deed ❑ Title ❑ Document

❑ Rent

❑ Collective ❑ CAP Cooperative ❑ Parcelled❑ Title ❑ Deed ❑ Other

❑ Other Specify: ..........................................................................

Area

Total area in manzanas..........................................Individually owned................................................Collectively owned ................................................

Distribution of farm area

Agricultural activities

Livestock system

Productive resources owned

❑ Water for irrigation ❑ Knapsack sprayer❑ Pulper ❑ Tractor❑ Team of oxen ❑ Other


Land use

FarmingPastureGrasslandForestInfrastructureTotal area

Area

Species

Large livestockTotalMilking cowsBullsCalves

Small livestockPoultryPigsGoats

Number Breed

Agriculturalactivity

Barnyard:

Croparea

Who does the work?Men Women

Purpose of outputSale Consumption


Labour

❑ Family❑ Salaried workers❑ Other Specify: ..............................................

Other activities generating family income

..................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................

III. HOUSING

The house you live in is

❑ Your own ❑ A cooperative ❑ Your family’s

Household drinking-water comes from

❑ Stream or river ❑ Well ❑ Water hole

Distance from the house is ..............................................

Is there a privy/toilet/lavatory? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Is there electricity? ❑ Sí ❑ No

Tipe of stove

❑ Earth oven ❑ Improved

❑ Other Specify: ..........................................................................

Where does the fuelwood supply comes from? ................................

How far away is the source of fuelwood? ........................................

IV. ORGANIZATION AND PARTICIPATION

Do you participate in a community organization? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Do you receive assistance from a project? ❑ Yes ❑ No

What kind?


Type

UnionCommunityProjectReligious

Man Woman Other member

Type of assistance

CreditTechnologyBasic services

WomanMan


Bibliography

De Rosnay, J. 1975. Le Macroscope,Paris. Ed. Le Seuil.

Dufumier M. 1985. Systèmes deproduction et développement agricole dans leTiers-monde. Les cahiers de la recherchedéveloppement N˚ 6.

FAO. 1991a. Desarrollo de sistemasagrícolas, pautas para la conducción de uncurso de capacitación en desarrollo desistemas agrícolas. Rome.

FAO. 1991b. Diagnóstico de sistemasagrarios: una metodología operativa, by P.Groppo. Santiago, Chile.

FAO. 1994. Mujeres campesinas enAmérica Latina. Desarrollo rural, acceso a latierra, migraciones y legislación.

FAO. 1996a. El Desarrollo de los sistemasde agricultura campesina en AméricaLatina, un análisis de la influencia delcontexto socioeconómico. (J.De Grandi).

FAO. 1996b. El enfoque de sistemasagropecuarios para el desarrollo y lageneración de tecnología apropiada. (D.Norman, F. Worman, J. Siebert, E.Modiakgotla).

FAO. 1997. Aspectos jurídicos en el accessode la mujer rural a la tierra en Cuba,Honduras, Nicaragua y República Domini-cana, by B. Galán. Preliminary version.

FAO/CIERA. 1992a. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de RafaelaTorres. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992b. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de FelipeGarcía. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992c. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de CarmelaFlores. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992d. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de ErnestinaJarquín. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992e. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de SocorroOrozco. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992f. Estudio del sistemade producción agropecuario de DelfiaMeza. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/CIERA. 1992g. Estudio delsistema de producción agropecuario deTimotea. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/ILO/UNDP/SEAGA. 1997. Análisissocioeconómico y de género, marco conceptual yreferencias para el usuario. Preliminaryversion.

FAO/INRA. 1992a. Memoria del taller dediagnóstico y organización, Colectivo de mujeresNo. 1. Terrabona, Dpto. de Matagalpa,Nicaragua. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1992b. Memoria del taller dediagnóstico y organización Colectivo de mujeresNo. 2. Terrabona, Dpto. de Matagalpa,Nicaragua. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1993a. Guía para el análisisdel sistema de producción y la unidad deproducción familiar. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR. Managua.

FAO/INRA. 1993b. Memoria del taller dediagnóstico participativo. Nº 5. Río Blanco.Training and Participation of Women inRural Development, Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1993c. Memoria del taller dediagnóstico participativo. Nº 4. Bocana dePaiwas. Training and Participation ofWomen in Rural Development, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA.1994a. Proceso de validaciónproductiva. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.Managua.

FAO/INRA. 1994b. Estudio del sistemade producción. Familia Solórzano ZamoraComunidad Malacawas, Bocana de Paiwas,Zelaya Central, Dpto. de Matagalpa. ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1994c. Estudio del sistemade producción. Familia Zahoran MirandaComunidad Emiliano Pérez, Bocana dePaiwas, Zelaya Central, Dpto. de Matagalpa.Proyecto GCP/NIC/020/NOR. Febrero.

FAO/INRA. 1994d. Estudio del sistemade producción. Familia Cisneros Méndez,Comunidad Ramón Pérez, Río Blanco,Matagalpa. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1994e. Estudio del sistema deproducción. Familia Salmerón Matamoros,Comunidad Martín Centeno, Río Blanco,Matagalpa. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1994f. Carga doméstica de lasmujeres campesinas. Memorias, Nº 3. Trainingand Participation of Women in RuralDevelopment, Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995a. Propuesta derealización de taller en Sistemas deProducción con enfoque de género. ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR. Managua.

FAO/INRA. 1995b. Caracterización de lacomarca Montaña Grande, Terrabona, Dpto.de Matagalpa. Project GCP/NIC/020/ NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995c. Diagnósticoparticipativo de la comarca de la Corona,San Ramón, Matagalpa, Nicaragua.Strengthening of the Capacity ofWomen in the Management of Small-scale Farm Production Units, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/ NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995d. Diagnósticoparticipativo de la Comarca La Pacayona,San Ramón, Matagalpa, Nicaragua.Strengthening of the Capacity ofWomen in the Management of Small-scale Farm Production Units, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/ NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995e. Diagnóstico partici-pativo de la Comarca Yucul, San Ramón,Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Strengthening of theCapacity of Women in the Management ofSmall-scale Farm Production Units, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995f. Seminario. Taller:Concepción metodológica desarrollo ruralsostenible. IPADE, Managua. ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/ INRA. 1995g. Diagnóstico sobre lasituación de la mujer y sus unidades deproducción campesina, Río Blanco y Bocanade Paiwas. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1995h. Seminar/Workshop:Sensibilización de género y su aplicación enel proceso de titulación agraria, August16–18, Managua, Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.



FAO/INRA. 1995i. Proceso de validaciónproductiva. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.Managua.

FAO/INRA. 1996a. Workshop: Conceptosy cálculos básicos sobre matemáticas finan-cieras dirigido a miembros de comités deFondo de Validación. Project GCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1996b. Informe de visita aComunidad Casa Blanca, Municipio dePueblo Nuevo, Estelí, Managua.Strengthening of the Capacity ofWomen in the Management of Small-scale Farm Production Units, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. 1996c. Proceso de planifi-cación comunitaria, Comarca La Corona,San Ramón, Matagalpa, Nicaragua.Strengthening of the Capacity ofWomen in the Management of Small-scale Farm Production Units, ProjectGCP/NIC/020/NOR.

FAO/INRA. (s.f.). Guía para el diagnósticocomarcal.

FAO/SEAGA. 1993. Towards a commonconceptual perspective on socio-economic andgender analysis.

FAO/SEAGA. 1997a. Socio-economic andGender Analysis, Conceptual Frameworkand References for Users.

FAO/SEAGA. 1997b. Socio-economicand Gender Analysis, Field Handbook.Preliminary version.

Feldstein, H.S. & Poats, S.V. (eds).1990. Working Together: Gender Analysis inAgriculture. Two volumes. Connecticut,USA, Kumarian Press.

Feldstein, H.S. y Jiggins J. (eds).1994. Tools for the Field, Methodologyhandbook for gender analysis in agriculture.Connecticut, USA, Kumarian Press.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1994a. Sistemati-zación del trabajo realizado en la fasepreparatoria del proyecto. In-houseworking paper.

GCP/NIC/O20/NOR. 1994b. Projectdocument Strengthening of the Capacity ofWomen in the Management of Small-scaleFarm Production Units. Revised version.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1995a. Seminar/Workshop. El enfoque de género en lossistemas de producción. Diagnóstico deSistemas Agrarios.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1996a. La unidadde la mujer campesina. Estrategia para laincorporación del enfoque de género en elinstituto nicaragüense de reforma agraria,by R. Sanabria.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1996b. Informe deevaluación de los resultados productivos defamilias beneficiadas por el proyecto en laépoca de primera del año 1996.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1996c. Informe deconsultoría sobre consideraciones de análisisde genero en los sistemas de producción, byC. Quiroz.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1997a. Informe dela misión de evaluación tripartita.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1997b. Caracteri-zación municipal de San Ramón, Matagalpay Diagnósticos participativos de las comarcasde La Bucul, y La Corona y Pacayota by E.Duarte, R. Qranda and C. Ruiz. Fielddocuments numbers 8,9 and 10.

GCP/NIC/020/NOR. 1997c. El sistemaagrario y los sistemas de producción delMunicipio de Terrabona, Matagalpa yDiagnósticos participativos de las Comarcasde San José, La Ceiba y Montaña grande, byF. Martínez. Field documents numbers8,9 and 10.

Mazoyer, M. 1997. Pour des projetsagricoles legitimes et efficaces. Theorieet methode d´analyse des systèmesagraires. Land reform bulletin.

Mazoyer, M. & Roudart. (eds). 1997.Histoires des agricultures du monde. Paris,Ed. Le Seuil.

Paris, T.R. (s.f.) Integrating the gendervariable in farming systems research.(Working paper)

Paris, T.R. & Luis, J. 1991. GenderIssues in Rainfed Agriculture, paperpresented at the InternationalConference on Extension Strategy forMinimizing Risk in Rainfed Agriculture,April 6–9, New Dehli.

Pillot, D. 1992. Réflexions sur la diversitédes approches systemiques du milieu rural.GRET.

Poats, S.V., Schmink, M. & Spring,A. (eds). 1988. Gender issues in farmingsystems research and extension. Boulder,Colorado, USA and London, WestviewPress, in cooperation with the Womenin Agricultural Development Program,University of Florida, USA.

Razavi, S. & Miller, C. 1997. Conceptualframeworks for gender analysis within thedevelopment context. UNRISD, BackgroundPaper for SEAGA Inter-Agency ReviewMeeting organized by UNDP, 6–9 March,Pearl River, New York.

Sautter, G. 1987. Appui pedagogique àl’analyse du mileu rural dans uneperspective de développement. Documentsystèmes agraires N° 8, Cinad.

Tourte, R. & Billaz, R. 1983. Enfoque delos sistemas agrarios y función investigación-desarrollo y L’agronomie tropicale, Paris,1982. Translation by PIDZAR (ProyectoInvestigación-desarrollo de zonas áridasy semiáridas), Venezuela.


When applied to agriculture, systems analysis is based on theassumption that the farmer’s unit is a productive system. In thiscontext, gender analysis, examines the roles, activities,responsibilities, opportunities and constraints of each member of thecommunity under review, and attempts to achieve greater equalitybetween women and men within their spheres of interaction.

Although the research areas of gender and farming systems analysisintersect at various points, each has its own scope. While genderanalysis takes into consideration economic production, reproductionand community participation, farming systems analysis tends tofocus on the technical and socio-economic aspects of agriculturalproduction. A conceptual framework, designed to combine bothapproaches, would therefore offer a better opportunity for graspingthe complex and heterogeneous reality of pleasant economies.

The purpose of this study is to propose a conceptual andmethodological framework that integrates a gender perspective intothe analysis of farming systems. The proposal is based on the reviewof the conceptual frameworks of systems and gender analysis and theanalysis of the experiences of the Nicaraguan project “Strengtheningthe Capacity of Women in the Management of Small-scale FarmProduction Units” (GCP/NIC/020/NOR).

TC/D/Y4936E/1/9.05/250