Gender mainstreaming in

agricultural extension
A case study fromcoastal
Bangladesh

Time at IRRI
October- December (2014): Mathew L,
Akter S (2016) Loss and Damage
Associated with Climate Change Impacts.
In: Chen W, Suzuki T, Lackner M (eds)
Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation. Springer, New York
January- March (2015): Gender
mainstreaming in agricultural extension.
Worked on an existing data set and study
compiled by Dr. Sonia Akter.

 Farmers in South Asia are listed according to land ownership

Women generally dont hold land titles
Hence, they are not listed (or recognized) as farmers
Consequently, women are systematically excluded from
agricultural extension services
Productivity of female farmers remain low relative to potential

Examining the implications of gender diferences and

constraints in designing, implementing, monitoring and
evaluating agricultural extension services and outreach
programs
Taking action to remove gender based constraints

Background of the
study

Gender
mainstreaming in
agricultural
extension

Gender mainstreaming in agricultural

extension

Intervention
Donor agencies are aiming to reverse
this trend
The first step towards eliminating gender
gap is to enlist women as a farmer.
Officially recognizes womens
contribution in agriculture.
It also gives women access to inputs
(e.g. seeds, fertilizers), training,
information, market and other services.

Objectives of the study

1. Identify the socio-cultural constraints of listing women
as farmers

2. Understand how and to what extent this initiative is

contributing to women empowerment

3. Identify the characteristics of the women who are

being listed and reached out by the intervention projects

4. Understand the factors influencing the decision to list

women as farmers

Study Area and Data Collection

Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA)

intervention area
Remote, conservative area
Male dominated
Main agricultural crop is rice (during wet season)
Other crops grown include wheat, maize and pulses
(during dry season)
Study conducted from October 2014- February 2015
Structured questionnaire survey
Male and female enumerators were used to conduct
the interviews
A combination of face-to-face and telephone interviews

Sample

Age (max-min)
Illiterate
Cultivable land (in
decimal)
Value of non-land asset (in
US$)
Income per capita per
month (in US$)

Male [72
(33%)]

Female
[144(67%)]

45 (22-70)

36 (20-60)

65%

73%

84

94

1,972

1,697

25

22

Listed vs. Unlisted Women

Listed

No

53

Yes

47

Do you want to be a
listed farmer in
future?

Womens
view (%)

Mens
view (%)

No

45

33

Yes

42

56

Maybe

11

I don't know

Why female farmers are not listed?

Male perspectives
I am listed, there is no need to engage them as
well
She is busy with housework
I dont like it
My mother doesnt like it
Female perspectives
My husband did not give my name
I have many things to do at home, hardly get
time for anything else
I dont like the idea of being listed as a farmer

Listed vs. Unlisted Women

Listed

No

53

Yes

47

Do you want to be a
listed farmer in
future?

Womens
view (%)

Mens
view (%)

No

45

33

Yes

42

56

Maybe

11

I don't know

Why dont women want to be listed

as farmers?
others
"
"
"
"
"
"

17.9

"

10.7

"

17.9

"

10.7

"

7.1

"

10.7

"
0

25
5

10

15
Percent

20

25

30

Benefits of being listed as a farmer

90
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0

no such benefit Receive seeds

Receive inputs Receive training Receive credit

Other

Womens decision making power

(Women's view)
Who takes important decisions regarding agriculture? (%)
By the
women
Unlisted
Listed

In consultation
with husband

By the hh
head

Othe
r

Total

29

36

27

100

73

14

100

Who takes important decisions regarding household

expenditure? (women's view) (%)
By the
women
Unlisted
Listed

In consultation
with husband
2
23
8

66

By the hh
Other
head
47
29
22

Total
100
100

Improvement in female decision

making power
Related to
agriculture
No

20.8

Mens
perspective (%)
0

Yes

75.3

96

I don't know

2.6

Total

98.7

100

Womens perspective (%)

Mens perspective
(%)

23.4

Yes

72.7

92

I don't know

1.3

Total

97.4

100

Related to
household
expenditure
No

Womens perspective (%)

Diferences in socio-economic
factors

Total value of nonland asset (in USD)

Land size (in
decimals)
Total yearly income
(in USD)

Unlisted
women

Listed
women

Mean
Difference

2219

1309

910***

118

60

5**

1938

1476

462

***, ** and * represent significant level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively

Results of Logit Regression Model

Dependent variable=Women listed (Yes=1,
No=0) variables
Explanatory

Coeffici
ent

P value

Age
Literate (illiterate=0, otherwise=1)
Highest education of the male member of the household
Number of infants
Non-land asset (in 000 Taka)
Land size (in decimal)
Value of savings available to women

-0.05**
-2.06***
-0.20
-0.354
-0.004*
0.001
0.06*

0.043
0.001
0.293
0.192
0.091
0.624
0.057

Income (in Taka)

How many days does your wife work during Rabi season

-0.001
-0.006

0.380
0.414

How many days does your wife work during Aman season

-0.011

0.218

Decision making power in agriculture (self or consultation with

husband)
Decision making power about household expenditure (self or
consultation)
Daulatkhan
Borhanuddin
Constant

1.59**

0.013

1.04

0.11

0.10
0.93*
2.51*

0.867
0.099
0.047

***,** and * represent significant level at 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively

Implications
Demographic and socio-economic factors was found
to highly influence the decision to list women as
farmers.
Cultural restrictions and prejudices against listing
were inferred from both the male and female
respondents.
Evidence that mainstreaming women in agriculture
increases their decision making ability
Overburdening women?
Donor agencies enforcing inequalities by targeting
predominantly the female farmers in poor
marginalized households?

Thank you