Gender in Value Chains
Emerging Lessons and Questions
A Draft working paper
Anna Laven (KIT), Anouka van Eerdewijk (CIDIN),
Angelica Senders (ICCO), Catherine van Wees (HIVOS)
and Roel Snelder (Agri-ProFocus)
Introduction
As members of Agri-ProFocus, working on value chains and rural livelihoods, we became
confronted with the non-gender sensitiveness of most of our tools and interventions. We
decided to take up this issue, and started a learning trajectory on gender in value chains.
During this process it became clear that we have to combine different knowledge fields:
‘gender and women empowerment’ with ‘value chain/pro-poor development’. This is and
remains a challenge, where we continually have to search for a balance in meeting both
angles.
The Agri-ProFocus trajectory on gender in value chains started in the beginning of 2008.
Active members of this trajectory are at the time of writing ICCO, Oxfam Novib, HIVOS,
SNV, Cordaid, KIT, Solidaridad, CIDIN, Wageningen International, and Agriterra. The
overarching goal for the trajectory is defined as: Having value chains work for women!
The central question that leads up to this overall goal is formulated as follows:
How can women be (economically) empowered in/through value chains?
For the purpose of this trajectory this question is divided in the following research
questions:





Which (critical) gender-issues in value chain development contribute to women
empowerment?
How do gender and women empowerment work out for different value chains?
What are important ‘windows of choice’ with regard to including a gender
perspective in specific value chains?
What are alternative and effective interventions with regard to empowering
women within the context of value chains (best and worse practices)?
How to create space for these alternatives / how to keep gender on the agenda
with value chain related organisations?
These questions reflect the idea that important questions are how we look at gender in
value chains, what kinds of instruments already exists, and the choices we have in using
these instruments.
We have documented the main initiatives that have been taken so far within the gender
in value chains trajectory in this working paper. In doing so, we intend to share the
insights generated and lessons learned so far. The paper starts with a brief explanation
of what has been undertaken so far (section A). One of the core initiatives has been the
collection of seven relevant cases. These cases, all describing interventions in a value
chain, have been analysed on gender and empowerment questions. The insights that
were generated out of these cases are discussed (section B). These insights, together
with some insights from a short literature review, have enabled the development of an
emerging framework on gender in value chains (section C). This framework is linked to
the main research questions. In the ultimate part (section D) this paper elaborates on
what we have learnt regarding the process itself and looks to the future.
March 2009
1
A. Our approach
We started off with gathering information in two ways: on the one hand, a brief literature
review, and on the other hand, a collection of cases. The goal of the quick and
preliminary literature scan was to map existing literature, studies, tools and manuals, in
order to see what knowledge is already available elsewhere and how that can be of use
to this trajectory. In addition, the literature review was meant to identify gaps and so far
unanswered questions.
Case collection
In order to gain more insight in the way gender plays out in value chains and in the way
value chains impact on gender and empowerment, there was a need for ‘real life
practices’. A call for cases of best practices was formulated, and the participating APF
members in the trajectory collected a total of eight case studies on different value chains
(see Table 1 for an overview of the cases).
Table 1. Collected cases
Product
1 Palm Oil
2 Tomatoes &
Cucumbers
3 Cocoa
4 Treecrop Essential
oils
5 Allan Blackia
6 Milk
7 Coffee
8 Karite
on gender in value chains
Country
APF organisations
Honduras
ICCO
Tajikistan
ICCO
Ivory Coast
Malawi
Solidaridad and Utz
Hivos and Tree Crops Ltd
Tanzania
India
Peru
Burkina
Hivos and Faida Mali
Agriterra and IIMF
Agriterra and JNC
ICCO
For the collection, the organisations contacted a selected number of partner
organisations with the invitation to write a description of a value chain project they were
working on, which had some kind of gender component. A short literature review helped
us to develop a set of guidelines to structure the description of the cases. In short the
guidelines consisted of the following:





Description of the chain
(type, actors, activities, institution and power structure);
Description of the target group and its position in the chain
(activities m/f, ownership capital goods, access to resources, workload, working
conditions, decision making in the chain and within the household and rewards
and its distribution);
Description of the intervention
(for whom, why, what, which steps);
Achievements (before and after the intervention)
(activities, access to land and capital, control over (ownership of) land and capital,
access to financial services and BDS, access to information, training and
extension, decision making power over process, decision making power over
distribution within the household, position in chain governance, distribution of
benefits (added value) in chain);
Lessons learned
(what went well, would could have done better, what are lessons learned, tips and
tools for gender sensitive chain analysis and interventions).
March 2009
2
Case analysis
Analysis of the cases was done at two instances. The first analysis was done by a small
steering-group. Within this group the cases were analyzed on:



Type and goal of intervention;
The results of the intervention (has the goal been reached?);
The impact of the intervention on empowerment of women.
The gender-framework of Mayoux and Mackie (forthcoming1) was used to analyze
constraints and success factors playing a role in the cases. The group was asked to make
a distinction between 1) individual, household, community, national and international
level; and 2) political, economic, psychological and social indicators
This first analysis was used as input for an emerging conceptual framework combining a
gender approach with a value chain approach. A set of new questions was developed. In
a meeting with the whole group, participants were invited to discuss the cases, making
use of the emerging framework and questions. It turned out the framework was quite
useful to understand the different gender and value chain dimensions and how these
could be combined.
B. Learning history on gender in value chains
The trajectory on gender and value chains has really been a learning process for its
members. It started somewhat from a sense that the value chain approach was not
‘human’ enough, tackling actors in a chain without recognizing differences among them.
During the process we also came to believe that we cannot understand gender in value
chains without combining value chain thinking with the gender approach on
development. Along the way we took up this challenge and invited (more) gender experts
to complement our group and our thinking. Together we analysed the cases and looked
at the literature. The case analyses, although preliminary and inconclusive, have pushed
us to look better at gender issues within value chains and vice versa. We started the
process with aiming at ‘answers’, but throughout the trajectory it turned out that instead
of answers our analysis mainly generated new questions. We value these questions as
they enable us to look better at gender in value chains in our future work. Although the
number of questions has risen, we also were able to structure our questions, and hence
focus our interests.
B1 Literature review
Although there is a wide range of literature on gender and value chains, there seems to
be a lack of reflection and examples of (best and worse) practices on women
empowerment in value chains, or on how more gender sensitive chain interventions
contributes to poverty alleviation. One of the pre-assumptions within our group was that
learning from best practices would have additional value. In our literature scan we found
that on the level of gender and value chain analysis there is quite some information (e.g.
documents from ILO, USAID, IDS, etc.2), but this source of information is not always well
accessible for practitioners. Only few analyses have been translated into manuals (e.g.
Mayoux and Mackie, forthcoming). Often these manuals still have rather complex tools
that need to be simplified or translated for being of use in the field. Even less information
can be found on ‘how to take action’. Literature which is readily available on the internet
we have collected at http://delicious.com/tag/apf_gender/.
1
2
Linda Mayoux and….
Consulted websites
March 2009
3
B2 Insight from analysing the cases
The case analyses have generated insights on different levels. We will start with a
reflection on the types of cases collected. Next, we will discuss three critical issues which
have come forward from the cases in terms of their relation to and impact on gender.
Finally, the case analyses have inspired more conceptual thinking on how to look at
gender issues in relation to value chains, and to identify which questions are important.
All three types of insights form the basis for the emerging framework that is presented
later in this working document.
Types of chains: selection bias
The majority of the selected value chain cases are not mainstream chains, with exception
of coffee and cocoa. The other chains which mainly operate in domestic markets, could,
from an international economic perspective, be viewed as ‘marginal’ chains. The
overrepresentation of marginal chains might suggest that gender and women’s concerns
are more easily addressed in domestic chains. Yet, the case of coffee in Peru shows that
in mainstream cases positive changes for women with respect to their access to for
example capital, training and extension, decision making in the production process and
position in the chain can be realized.
This means that the question related to the contribution of value chains to women’s
empowerment needs to be specified for different types of chains. An interesting question
is whether there is more space or potential for empowerment of women in international
or marginal chains. And do other issues and opportunities arise in different chains?
Future analysis of cases would require a more balanced sample.
Despite the limited number and the biased sample of cases – which also means that
results cannot be generalized -, the preliminary analysis of this small number of cases
sheds light on issues that clarify questions of gender, women and empowerment.
Moreover, it provides a basis for a more conceptual reflection on what we exactly would
like to know when we talk about gender in value chain.
Case analysis
When considering the seven cases, three main areas about where gender and value
chains intersect come forward. It is at these intersection points that opportunities for
empowerment occur, but also the reproduction of the status-quo or negative effects on
gender relations can take shape. Put differently, these areas of concern merit attention
when analyzing gender in value chains, or when designing interventions.
A first area of interest is the sexual division of labour within the chain and within
the household (farming-system), and the interaction between those two. Many cases
explained which tasks women (and men) perform within the chain, or described whether
women or men were the main beneficiaries and gained access to the newly generated
income. Who does what work and how labour intensive is that? What does the newly
created task imply for other work, productive or reproductive, that women and/or men
take up within the household of the community? The work that women and men take up
within the chain, can mean that they have less time and energy to for instance invest in
subsistence farming, income generating activities or household tasks. The increased
workload of producing batana from Ojon Palmnuts resulted in a decrease of crop
cultivation. With respect to women, a special issue of concern is how the work performed
within the chain adds to their work burden.
A second insight is the sexual division of labour, access and management within
the chain. This encompasses both economic activities and chain management. This area
is concerned with understanding where in the chain women and men are active: who
March 2009
4
does the actual harvesting and/or processing? Who is involved in marketing? Are both
women and men involved in the stages where the added value is generated and where
the actual income is earned?
There is a need to distinguish between the economic activities within the chain and the
actual management of the chain. What role do women and men play in the management
of the chain? Who takes decisions at what levels and who takes up leadership positions?
Barriers that can play a role in impeding women’s access to and participation include low
educational levels, limited mastery of Spanish or English, or not having an identity card
that is necessary for financial and formal procedures (e.g. Batana case Honduras). In
other cases, however, changes have come about in women’s role in chain governance.
Special areas of attention are gendered access to income and property, as well as the
role of women and men in decision-making and leadership. Of particular interest of
course is the access to benefits, in particular the income generated out of the chain. Who
signs the contracts for the sale of the products? Who receives the income of the chain? A
related matter concerns the property rights over the trees, land, plants, etc., which are a
crucial part of the production realized within the chain. In the Allan Blackia case for
example, women are planting trees on family land, but it is not clear who owns the trees
and the harvest. In a similar vain, the Ojon Palm in Honduras is a wild species and
cannot be claimed by anyone; verbal agreements govern who has access to what. In
addition, land discussions are largely held by men. Unclarity about ownership of
production capital can impede the development of chain activities. Moreover, when
particular trees or parts of land turn into profitable capitals, tensions can arise around
ownership and access.
A third important area that emerged from the cases is the gender dynamics of
decision-making within the household. Can women earn a small income when
investing considerable time and energy cultivating trees or land which are not their
property? In such cases, the entitlements of women and men to actual benefits might be
unclear, and it is questionable to what extent such situations lead to the empowerment
of women. The third issue is related to this matter of access to income and property, but
goes a step further. What happens within the household with the income and property
that women and men have? Do men spend their income and use their property according
to their own decisions, or in consultation with their wives? Or are men and women
deciding together? Do women themselves decide on how to use their income, or is that
money inserted into the household budget? One step further, the question which has
been raised elsewhere is how income generation enables men to withdraw from
household responsibilities.
Few cases provided insight into how the increased income or women’s changing role in
the chain was appreciated and valued within the household. The point is that the gender
dynamics within the households are crucial in understanding the actual meaning of the
signing of contracts, access to income, or entitlements to property. Special attention here
is needed for the say of women in the spending of the household budget, and the extent
to which women’s income is for their own expenses or part of the household budget. A
crucial concern is also the effect of women’s increasing income on the extent to which
men take their responsibilities within the household.
The analyses of cases have generated insights that we can incorporate in a next set of
guidelines that we will develop for analyzing further cases on gender in value chains. The
analyses have also made us aware of questions we did not ask but should have asked, or
should have asked in more detail. One final question that needs to be highlighted here is
whether changes come about because of the dynamics within the chain, or because of
the intervention of the NGO. Is the chain gender-sensitive or empowering, or has the
NGO’s intervention opened up space for and invested in gender concerns and women’s
empowerment.
March 2009
5
Conceptual insights
In some ways, the preliminary analysis has generated more questions than decisive
answers. This also counts in a more conceptual sense. The analysis of the available
cases, and the use of the developed guidelines, allowed for conceptual reflection on how
to think through the matter of gender in value chains. Four conceptual points will be
addressed here.
The first is the awareness that gender analysis is more than describing what
women do and get in a chain. Put differently, gender is more than women in two
senses. Firstly, gender is also about men, so a gender analysis not only requires insight
into what women do and get, but also needs to reveal what men do and get in a chain or
a household. What tasks do men perform within the chain? What are their roles and
responsibilities within the household? Also, it is important to recognize that a gender
analysis is also concerned with the power dynamics around that what women and men do
and get. What are the critical gender issues in that community, what interventions and
policies are taken up, and what are the main constraints for women’s empowerment?
Gender and empowerment are conceptually complex, and it is challenge to bring this
complexity into value chain analysis.
Secondly, there is a need to differentiate between achievements and
empowerment. The case descriptions for instance mentioned whether women had
gained access to income, whether more women were signing contracts, or whether they
were taking up leadership positions. These in principle should be seen as changes in
women’s role and/or position. But these changes are not necessarily instances of
empowerment or contribute to gender equality. In order to be able to see whether a
specific change can be interpreted as empowerment, the view and perspective of the
women, and men, concerned has to be included. How do they value their position in the
household, community and chain? What changes are positive to them? How is
empowerment actually interpreted by those directly involved?
Thirdly, the household cannot be considered a black box. This also counts for the
gender dynamics within the community. We should not only look at chain related
activities, but place these activities within a broader context. This implies that the
dynamics and relations within the household and at the institutional level need to be
unpacked, rather than taken for granted. How do value chains interact with those gender
dynamics: do they open up spaces and allow women to overcome constraints, or do they
contribute to maintaining the status quo, or even push women further outside the
productive domain? Are technological innovations and investments for instance
specifically addressed at men, or also at women? How do value chains affect the
institutional and household level? And how are interventions on value chain development
affecting the positions of women and men?
Fourthly, the chain empowerment framework allows to address some of the
critical issues related to gender in value chains, but does not suffice. A gap
occurred in looking at gender in value chains, using only a value chain empowerment
perspective, chain managament (horizontal integration) and chain activities (vertical
integration) (see section C). The cases confirmed that value chain analysis and gender
analysis have to be combined. Gender analysis adds the household perspective (“black
box”) and the institutional context (at different levels, local, regional, national). This final
insight, which was build on the foregoing ones, provided the basis for the development of
an emerging framework on gender and empowerment in value chains, which will be
presented in the next section.
March 2009
6
C. An emerging framework on gender in value chains
In analyzing the cases we see that we have gathered information on two different levels:
1.
2.
On activities and power within a value chain
On activities and power within a household
These respective levels have been thoroughly discussed in different bodies of literature:
the value chain literature and the gender right-based approach. The question in this
working paper is how can we bring these different approaches together?
In the next section, we unravel both approaches and bring them back to some keydimensions, which will form the basis of our emerging framework on gender in value
chains.
C1. Chain empowerment
At the level of farmers already a useful framework has been developed that enables us in
understanding strategies for chain development. This framework, developed by KIT,
Faida Mali and IIRR (2006 ), distinguishes four basic forms of small-scale farmer
participation in a chain. Each of these roles requires different intervention strategies by
the intermediary organization.
Types of participation in a chain have been summarized in two broad dimensions:
1.
2.
The types of activities that farmers undertake in the chain
The involvement of the farmer in the management in the chain.
Farmers can undertake different activities in the chain, or concern themselves only with
the production process. Examples of other activities are drying and fermentation of their
crop (post-harvest activities), or grading, processing, transporting and trading. Being
involved in various activities in the chain is known as vertical integration. The main
question posed here to determine the position of a farmer is: What activities in the chain
do the farmers do?
The involvement of farmers in the management of the chain relates to involvement in
decision-making processes, control over management issues, etc. Farmers can be
excluded from decision-making about issues that affect them (for example what crops
they grow). It can also be the case that the level of control of the farmers is high: they
maybe able to decide how much they sell, to whom and what price. They can also be in
control of defining grades and production standards. Being involved in many chain
management issues is known as horizontal integration.
The main question posed here to determine the position of a farmer is: Who determines
the conditions under which these activities are done? If we combine these two
dimensions we get a matrix (figure 1):
March 2009
7
Figure 1:
Chain empowerment dimensions (Source: KIT et al, 2006)
Chain activites
Vertical integration
CHAIN
ACTIVITY
INTEGRATOR
CHAIN
ACTOR
CHAIN
CO-OWNER
CHAIN
PARTNER
Horizontal integration
Chain management
Chain actor: a farmer is a chain actor when he/she only engages in farming and has no
influence over the other dimensions of the chain.
Chain activity integrator: a farmer is an integrator if he/she moved into other
activities in the chain, yet without exerting more influence on the management of the
chain.
Chain partner: a farmer is a chain partner if he/she specializes in farming and, for
example through membership of a farmer group, has influence over management issues
in the chain.
Chain co-owner: a farmer is a co-owner if he/she has moved upstream in the chain, as
well as his/her influence over the management of the chain.
This matrix is a tool for strategic thinking about chain development. The best position of
a farmer is not necessarily in the upper-right quadrant, but depends on the specific
situation, and may change over time.
When bringing a gender perspective into the chain empowerment framework, it becomes
relevant to consider what empowerment processes female and male farmers are
experiencing. How are men moving along the two axes of integration, and what changes
are women farmers experiencing within a specific chain? As such, the framework allows
addressing some of the critical issues which came forward out of our analysis of the case
studies. Yet, a set of other questions related to the household and institutional levels
merits attention, but is not incorporated in this framework. What happens to the income
distribution and workload within the household? What choices and alternatives do women
have regarding the chain activities and management? Do women have a voice beyond
the chain, and if they have a voice do they make use of it? And how are their
perspectives and needs linked to their achievements in the chain? In order to be able to
do justice to these types of questions, a gender and empowerment framework is
required.
C2. Gender empowerment
A gender and empowerment framework has to depart from the distinction between the
concepts of gender and women. ‘Women’ is not gender, but women are a category of
people. Gender is the socially constructed difference between women and men; it is not
so much about biological differences between women and men, but about how society
March 2009
8
gives meanings to these differences in femininity and masculinity, and the power
relations and dynamics that come about as a result of this3. Knowing what women do in a
chain or household, or how women or men spend their income is a first starting point,
but does not necessarily say anything about gender. Bearing the woman/gender
distinction in mind, empowerment can be defined as “a process by which those who have
been denied the ability to make strategic life choices acquire the ability to do so”
(Kabeer, 1999: 437). Empowerment is about changing gender relations in order to
enhance women’s ability to shape their lives. Empowerment is hence about a process of
change, and encompasses both the question of what is changing and the question how
that change is being valued.
Three dimensions of empowerment can be distinguished: resources, agency and
achievements (Kabeer, 1999). Resources serve to enhance the ability to make choices
and shape one’s life. They include (access to) material, human and social resources, and
can be both actual and future claims. Agency is understood as the “ability to define one’s
goals and act upon them”4 (Kabeer, 1999). It is not only about observable action, but
also about meanings, motivations and purpose. Resources and agency combined
constitute what Amartya Sen5 has called capabilities, that is the potential people have for
living the lives they want, of achieving their valued ways of being and doing.
Achievements are the manifestations or outcomes of the different choices people make,
and the different shapes their lives take. It is important to avoid focusing on the
differences in the choices people make. Empowerment is not about those differences; it
is concerned with reducing the inequalities in people’s capacity to make choices, rather
than the actual choices themselves. That means that gender differentials in functioning
achievements are not by definition a problem, because differences in preferences have to
be distinguished from denials of choice.
C3. Combining chain empowerment with gender empowerment
In order to make an analysis of a chain in terms of empowerment of women, insight is
needed into the dynamics of gender. Four questions can be asked:
1. What are the gender dynamics in the household (regarding production,
reproduction and decision-making)?
2. What are the key (gender) issues for women in the community? (e.g. reproductive
health, property rights, access to microcredit, income generating activities, sexual
and gender based violence, lack of voice, inheritance, etc.)
3. What has changed for women and men in chain activities and chain management
(vertical and horizontal dimensions)?
4. How do women and men value these changes?
These questions indicate that in order to make a gender analysis of chain empowerment,
one needs to step in and out of the chain continuously. Gender issues and dynamics are
not restricted to the arena of the chain itself, and in order to assess what critical issues
are constraints for women or how changes in the chain impact on gender (in)equality,
one has to take the household and community context into account. Otherwise, the
achievements realized in the chain cannot be considered achievements in terms of
empowerment, as no insight is generated into how people’s ability to make choices has
changed.
When the gender and empowerment framework and the chain empowerment matrix are
combined into one matrix, four dimensions of empowerment in value chains can be
distinguished (see Figure 2).
3
Add reference.
Add reference +pp Kabeer
5
Add reference
4
March 2009
9
Figure 2:
Four dimensions of empowerment of gender in value chains
Vertical integration into chain
Internal
Horizontal integration into chain
Gender dynamics in household and
community
External
Institutional context: rules, norms and
values
The first two dimensions encompass the chain empowerment axes. They can be
considered as internal to the chain. The final two dimensions are external to the chain.
They encompass on the one hand the gender dynamics, and on the other hand the
institutional context. The gender dynamics concern both the household and the
community. The institutional context is about political, economic and social institutions,
and includes both the national and international context (see also Mayouk and Mackie,
forthcoming). The concern in this dimension is with the rules, norms and values that are
relevant to either the chain or gender dynamics. This four dimensional framework has
been translated into four analytical questions aimed at grasping the empowerment
dimensions of gender in value chains (table 2).
Table 2.
Analytical questions on the 4-dimensional matrix: empowerment /
gender in value chains
Vertical integration
 What activities do women and men in the chain do?
into chain
 What benefits do women and men gain?
 Who determines the conditions under which these
Horizontal integration
activities are done and benefits are gained and
into chain
distributed?
 How do changes in the first two dimensions affect the
Gender dynamics in
gender division of labour, assets and decision-making
household and
within the household?
community
 How do the changes in the first two dimensions affect the
gender dynamics within the community?
 Which economic, political and social factors enable or
Institutional context:
constrain women’s empowerment on the other three
rules, norms and
dimensions?
values
 How do changes in the first two dimensions influence the
institutional context?
We acknowledge that the processes of change within gender empowerment and chain
empowerment differ. Although there are links the goal of empowerment is not the same.
A consequence is that linking the two approaches can create some tensions. This tension
became also apparent in analyzing the cases: there is a tension between the market
orientation of the value chain approach and the right-based gender approach. In this
working document we have not taken up this issue, but in follow-up we will look further
into this.
C4. Answering the research questions
This emerging analytical framework does not provide detailed and precise answers to the
questions that were set out at the beginning of the trajectory. Rather, it underlines the
importance of these questions. Luckily, the emerging framework allows for the collection
of cases and information in a more precise way, and allows for a better analysis of such
material. Notwithstanding, the preliminary analysis and the first insights generated so
far, do make it possible to make some cautious suggestions on what could be ‘windows
of choice’ with respect to making value chains work for women.
March 2009
10






Invest in women closing contracts, and in women have access to the income
generated in chains
Policies that enhance women’s participation and representation in governance
structure of chains.
This can also mean supporting women in women leadership and overcoming
barriers to their representation
Working with local women’s organizations to understand gender dynamics and
crucial gender issues
Involve women, men and the community in defining what is empowerment to
them, and in the evaluation of interventions
Invest in technology to reduce workload women, within and maybe outside chain
General comment: promotion of gender equality is not something realized with one
magic bullet (e.g. access to income), but needs investments and interventions in
different domains simultaneously and over long time. That means that in order for value
chains to empower women, they have to link up with these processes of change which
are also supported elsewhere (e.g. access to education, debates over property rights, .
you name it). So, not function in isolation.
D. Reflections on our learning process
When we look back at the learning process we went through over the previous year we
see both a structured and sometimes messy road. We want to share some reflections on
the process as – in our view – it helps in looking ahead and in improving our learning.
Different perspectives – concrete outputs
The first question to work on gender in value chains within the Agri-ProFocus partnership
came from two Agri-ProFocus member organisations who found it important to get others
on board. This open attitude has led to designing the trajectory with a group of
professionals from both NGOs and knowledge institutes (Oxfam Novib, HIVOS, KIT,
Solidaridad, CIDIN, Wageningen International, and Agriterra). We had to combine
different perspectives and expectations (some wanted tools, others wanted to work on
concrete interventions – some were focussed on international chains – others more on
domestic markets). What helped to get to a joint objective was to stay modest and
define concrete the outputs.
Learning by doing
What is obvious - and we stated it before - we set out to look for answers and found
more detailed questions. We did not find ready made solutions but have gone through a
process that has contributed to our understanding and capacity. We find it important to
acknowledge this as an important achievement. We feel we now have increased our
understanding of what are the issues to look at with regard to how women can be
(economically) empowered in/through value chains. Each step has helped us in gaining
more confidence: guideline development, writing up cases, expanding our horizon by
looking at literature, and exchange to test emerging ideas. In that sense we have gone
through a process of ‘ learning by doing’.
It has also become clear that in drawing the lessons learned (which we did jointly with
the whole group late 2008) the different perspectives each of us is having are again reemerging. Some of us will want to focus on improving on the conceptual framework by
analyzing more cases; others will want to apply lessons learned in practice. We again
need to look at the possibilities to combine such action – and learning.
March 2009
11
Sharing roles
As we moved along a role division has emerged. Some organisations provided cases,
others developed a guideline and started looking for literature and tools; all of this often
in addition to regular duties within their respective organisations. Over the year we found
that we needed to go with the flow. Some organisations participated more than others as
the trajectory coincided more with their competencies and / or a felt need at a given
time.
What has helped greatly was that a small group has taken charge of monitoring progress
and made sure that we kept a level playing field for others to join in. In view of others
coming linking up to this initiative the configuration of this steering group may need to
change.
Network of ambassadors
What emerged throughout was that each participant - in one way or another – is an
ambassador within his / her own organisation on the subject of gender (and value
chains). It is not always easy to play this role vis a vis colleagues who have many duties.
This is certainly an area of attention for the future.
What helps is to combine different knowledge fields: ‘gender and women empowerment’
with ‘value chain/pro-poor development’. We have seen as a group that this combination
has improved the quality of our discussions. We expect that it can also help to strengthen
the advocacy within the participating organizations on gender in value chains.
Growing community of practice
The group of participating organizations and professionals is now growing further and
several smaller gatherings on shared issues are happening more frequently (e.g on
gender and certification porcesses). Other members are coming in such as Cordaid and
SNV; others also outside the Agri-ProFocus membership are showing an interest.
This underlines the relevance of further exchange and joint work on issue of gender in
value chains within Agri-ProFocus. Also gender is a cross cutting issue within the AgriProFocus 4 year strategy. It is expected that it will be on the agenda within the country
programmes of the partnership.
This means that other professionals interested will bring in new questions and
perspectives. We therefore need to make sure that the network is open and flexible to
accommodate for that. So rather than one clearly defined trajectory we are now moving
to being a community of practice with various agendas which will have their own dynamic
yet with strong linkages.
For that purpose we have also adapted and opened up the online tools we are using to
ensure a greater interaction. If you want to come on board you can now do easily by
visiting http://genderinvaluechains.ning.com
Your feedback and participation are welcome!
Angelica Senders (ICCO)
Anna Laven (KIT)
Anouka van Eerdewijk (CIDIN)
Catherine van Wees (HIVOS)
Roel Snelder (Agri-ProFocus)
March 2009
12
Box 1: Brief overview Agri-ProFocus trajectory on gender in value chains
Goal
to achieve that economic programmes of participating organisations contribute to gender
empowerment.
Purpose
a better understanding of (critical) gender-issues in value chains at various chain levels
Expected outputs
 overview of the diversity of gender dynamics in value chains;
 insight into interventions / crucial ‘windows of choice’ for the inclusion of a gender
perspective;
 Tools and instruments regarding PME of gender in value chains.
Activities and achievements to date
 A guideline to look into cases on gender and value chains;
 Description of 8 cases (from ICCO Agriterra, Solidaridad, and HIVOS);
 Literature compiled and reviewed on gender and value chains;
 A first quick and dirty analysis of cases;
 A joint exchange on lessons learned;
 A working paper focusing on an emerging framework on gender in value chains
 Increase of professionals active in the trajectory have increased to include over 10
APF member organizations and 30+ professionals
 Online tool to support the trajectory;
 Several short meetings on specific programmes and questions
 Start of tool ‘development’
March 2009
13