Gender success stories Alessandra Galiè and Juliet Kariuki Mid-term Livestock Genetics Flagship Meeting Nairobi, 5-6 September 2017

Gender and genetics strategy 3 main research areas: Gender dynamics => genetics interventions Genetics interventions => gender dynamics Institutional arrangements => gender equitable outcomes Page title minimum of 30 points and maximum of two lines Main point 6 point smaller than slide title Bullet points 4 point less than main point Font type is Calibri It is advised in one slide maximum 6 bullets We recommend you use images on slides You can change partner logos on front page You have to duplicate this slide for more inside pages

Gender dynamics => livestock genetics interventions Gender and genetics strategy: Q1 Gender dynamics => livestock genetics interventions How  do gender dynamics affect the relevance of livestock genetics interventions? What roles do women and men play in managing different species - particularly in breeding and accruing the benefits? And why? What are the species and then traits preferred by women and men that increase the relevancy of improved breeds at household level? What are the gendered opportunities and constraints affecting the accessibility of improved livestock genetics? Role in deciding the preferred livestock traits to be maintained in the herd, in culling and in selling the animals? Why? What are the dynamics and norms behind these patterns? E.g. are ownership of land or livestock, the division of labour, gendered access to diverse benefits determinants of decision-making patterns? How?

Livestock genetics interventions => gender dynamics Gender and genetics strategy: Q2 Livestock genetics interventions => gender dynamics How are gender dynamics affected by the introduction of livestock genetics interventions? How do improved breeds/management affect intra-household workload, benefit sharing and gender dynamics? b) What are the mechanisms/factors that influence such changes and how can they be dealt with to support gender-equity? (strategic question) Mechanisms: how can changes in breed composition of household livestock effectively enhance women’s empowerment – e.g. without disrupting the status quo in ways that may result in backlashes from other household or community members?

Institutional arrangements => gender equitable outcomes Gender and genetics strategy: Q3 Institutional arrangements => gender equitable outcomes What institutional arrangements can ensure a gender-equitable outcome of genetics interventions? What process/main steps need to be put in place to guarantee a gender-responsive breeding programme? What policy arrangements can effectively facilitate women’s access to genetic material? How to balance between an accommodative and a transformative breeding approach when prioritizing research? (strategic question) Process/main steps E.g. in establishing genetic improvement priorities (based on their different needs, different species preferences and different priority traits), and in choosing a genetic improvement strategy (for example, considering different impacts of gender norms on participation in community-based genetic improvement programs). Accommodative vs Transformative: E.g. Priorities: What species to focus on for a gender-equitable approach? The ones most commonly owned by women (usually smaller size and value, and kept in the house) or shall we promote women’s control over more valuable species? Trade-offs: How do we prioritize between focusing research on species that benefit women and enhance their empowerment, and species that enhance household food security? This may happen in cases when an improved breed of a species not controlled by women is introduced, with a consequent increase in the food availability in the household which entails an increase in women’s workload.

Gender and genetics strategy: Implementation Staffing: Gender scientist assigned to flagship Gender post-doc and students assigned to projects and contribute to flagship Interested genetics scientists identified for collaboration Approach: Strategic and integrated work in flagship undertaken Work closely across flagships Flagships supports % time gender staff Funding opportunities identified: CRP funds and beyond Co-supervision of students and post-docs across flagships Co-authorship of papers and presentations Page title minimum of 30 points and maximum of two lines Main point 6 point smaller than slide title Bullet points 4 point less than main point Font type is Calibri It is advised in one slide maximum 6 bullets We recommend you use images on slides You can change partner logos on front page You have to duplicate this slide for more inside pages

Gender Sensitive Ruminant Breeding in Kenya: Problematise and expand Rural women represent majority of livestock ‘keepers’ More likely than men to own small ruminants (Kosgey et al, 2004; Peacock, 2005) Keepers = managers In pastoral systems, women participate in every aspect of livestock management (Flintan, 2008) What about men? Significant knowledge gaps Specific gendered contribution to, preferences for, and benefits from livestock breeding (Benard et al, 2016; Marshall et al, 2016) Crucial for achieving equitable outcomes from livestock productivity interventions (Bravo-Baumann 2000; Quisumbing, 2015) These knowledge gaps represent an opportunity to problematize our conceptualisation of gender and broaden our scope to new research areas

Gender research under the AVCD Livestock component Overall objective seeks to improve the productivity of small ruminants in pastoral production systems through better herd management and innovative community-based breeding Specific objectives: To equitably establish community innovation groups (CIGs) to pilot improved livestock productivity practices in pastoral systems To develop the capacity of national and development partners, and key stakeholders in livestock productivity improvement practices under arid environments To develop and implement a gender sensitive selective breeding and improvement program for small ruminants under pastoral production systems

Research Questions 1) What is the gendered participation in, and are the preferences for SR livestock breeding? 2) What are the gendered opportunities and constraints faced by livestock keepers in SR management and at the market-level? 3) Which norms and customs condition gendered access to and control over SR, and why? Start to explore question 1 from the gender and genetics strategy

Preliminary results Gender Roles Deciders   Gender Roles Deciders (castration, culling through sale) Influencers Trait preferences Mostly meat Mostly milk; more likely to mention behavioural traits Opportunities Knowledge on value addition of improved breeding management = stronger bargaining at the market Knowledge and training on herd management to improve milk productivity = more home consumption and sale? Constraints Poor market prices Cannot sell livestock independently (exceptions) Norms and customs Socially constructed ‘rules’ define acceptable behaviour and practices Women should ‘look after the homestead’; men should do the ‘hard’ work First wives can exercise more agency In nearly all the cases, communities were practicing uncontrolled mating, not practising record keeping etc This information could be strengthened if we were working collaboratively with teams looking into other inputs – for example, forage and dryland systems. So wee see some opportunities in the future to have a systematic understanding of gender relations within breeding systems – this way we can understand better the gender relations may look like in order to maintain the productivity of improved breeds

Looking forward How can we reconcile between trait preferences in contexts where rigid gender norms persist? Whose preferences are prioritised? Why? What are the implications on gender relations and gender strategies? At which points in the breeding cycle do we integrate gender? Which are the best methods? These questions help us understand question 3 c) from the gender strategy

References Benard, M. et al., 2016. The Silent Cattle Breeders in Central Nicaragua. In M. Benard et al., eds. A different kettle of fish? Gender integration in livestock and fish research. LM Publishers, pp. 84–91. Bravo-Baumann, H. 2000. Gender and livestock: Capitalisation of experiences on livestock projects and gender. Working document. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Bern. Flintan, F. 2008. Women’s empowerment in pastoral societies. Peacock, C. 2005. Goats - A pathway out of poverty. Small Ruminant Research, 60(1–2 SPEC. ISS.), pp.179–186. Marshall, K. et al. 2016. Traditional livestock breeding practices of men and women Somali pastoralists: trait preferences and selection of breeding animals. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 133(6), pp.534–547. Kosgey, I. S. et al. 2004. Economic values for traits in breeding objectives for sheep in the tropics: impact of tangible and intangible benefits. Livestock Production Science (88), pp. 143 – 160. Quisumbing, A. R. et. al. 2015. Gender, Assets and Market-oriented Agriculture: Learning from High-value Crop and Livestock Projects in Africa and Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (4): 705–725.