Designing for gender integration: Overview of Recommendations to FFP

1. Designing for gender integration: Overview of Recommendations to FFP TOPS FSN Knowledge Sharing Meeting November 15 2012

2. Outline of Presentation • Overview: • Policy environment for gender • Why gender integration is relevant for food security • Recommendations provided to FFP to integrate gender • Conclusions: Key considerations in designing for gender integration

3. Policy Environment for Gender • Importance of gender equality has long been recognized by USAID. • USAID Gender Policy launched in March 2012 • FFP FY 2010 onwards Title II Proposal Guidelines – enhanced focus on gender, FY 2012/13 RFA: • Gender must be integrated into each program • Cross-cutting or it’s own SO • Program design must consider • How will gender relations affect achievement of sustainable results? • How will results affect relative status of women and men? • Gender indicators included • Must have staff with gender expertise

4. USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy launched Milestones March 2012 ADS is revised and finalized making gender integration mandatory USAID-wide March 2011 Feb 2010 Report on Gender Integration in FFP published as an FFP occasional paper and first steps to gender integration start Oct/Nov 2009 Gender integration in Title II becomes mandatory USAID-wide May-Sep 2009 Revised Title II proposal guidelines to integrate gender FFP

5. Why Does Gender Integration Matter For Food Security? • Gender inequality is a root cause of food insecurity • Relative to men and boys, women and girls have: • social status • access to and control over resources • negotiating and decision-making power but the most responsibility for household food security and caring for children and family • control over their time and mobility

6. Why Does Gender Integration Matter For Food Availability? Because: • There is a difference in men and women’s productive, reproductive and community roles– by age and life-stage • Men and women don’t have the same access to or control over land, resources, and capital • Most often women have much less access to and control over: land, resources, capital, farming inputs, sale of assets, trading, etc. relative to men

7. Why Does Gender Integration Matter For Food Access? Because: • There is a difference between men and women’s access to and control over resources, income, power, and decision-making at the household and community level – by age and life-stage • Wages women and men earn can be very different, with women earning much less, having fewer skills, and working with less frequency • Women often have less purchasing power, decision-making power, control over their own income or household income relative to men

8. Why Does Gender Integration Matter For Food Utilization? Because: • There is a difference in men and women’s care-giving roles, reproductive roles, decision-making and control over resources– by age and life-stage • While women are primary caregivers – their low status and position within the family leaves them with little decision-making power regarding child care and feeding • Involving men is important because they have much greater decision-making power than women, and their support in this regard is critical for young child nutrition

9. Differences between and within sexes • Differences between the sexes, relative to men – women have: • Differences within the sexes • less access to resources, capital, land, productive assets • less decision-making power and mobility • require permission to obtain services or participate in activities • earn much less than men, have fewer employment opportunities, fewer skills, and fewer days of work • Older women gain power, respect and decision-making authority with age relative to young women • Older men have the greatest access to resources relative to young men • Older women have more negotiating power to participate in livelihood and income-generation activities • Older women have more capabilities and resources to manage food security

10. Women’s decision making by age Predominant Livelihoods Beneficiaries Predominant MCHN Beneficiaries

11. Time Poverty For mothers of young children: Time spent on IGA/ training / agricultural production = Less time for BF & CF = worse child nutrition

12. Livelihood diversification (range of activities eg., farming, livestock, trading, microcredit, poultry etc) Adolescent mother Women’s & men’s access to land and land tenure Early marriage & Marriage practices Women & men’s access to & control over resources & inputs Male involvement Maternal and child health and nutrition Food Security & Livelihoods Women’s & men’s employment, incomes, control over income & contribution to hhld FS Shared responsibility for mothers & children’s well-being Women’s status & Violence against women Engaging family gatekeepers Social transitions – migration & marriage rights Early warning and response Shifts in gender relations after major shocks/disasters Shocks/hazards/risks/ different for men & women Different vulnerabilities depending on age, gender, and life-stage Gender issues in Title II Programming

13. Overview of Recommendations to FFP DCHA/FFP • Leadership, policy, guidelines on gender mainstreaming in operations • Ensure skills, knowledge, capacity within FFP • Opportunities and resources for innovative programming by IPs Implementing partners • Commit to gender equality and policies • Assess and strengthen capacity, M&E, and reporting • Innovate approaches in gender equity strategies for food security Knowledge management and sharing

16. What does it mean to integrate gender and promote gender equality? • Gender equality consists of many dimensions or domains • No one project can address all the dimensions or domains of gender equality • For many projects promoting gender equity is a more tangible means to promoting gender equality • For program design clarifying what you can influence and change in terms of gender is important to define at the start • The gender objective is an integral part of how the project will achieve its goals and strategic objectives – it is a way of working.

17. Gender domains in FY2012 Title II RFA Domains of gender equality that projects can affect could include, but are not limited to:  For agriculture and livelihoods activities: • Access to an control over resources and assets • Economic empowerment For MCHN activities:  • Gender relations and dynamics • Male involvement in maternal and child nutrition • Shared responsibility between men and women for young child nutrition • Decision-making related to health • Mobility related to health-seeking behaviors For early warning and disaster risk reduction activities: • Community planning for risk reduction and disaster mitigation that identifies men and women’s risks/vulnerabilities, roles, responsibilities, and permissions by age and life-stage •  Gender relations and dynamics that are affected by shocks and disasters

18. What are key considerations in designing for gender integration? • Gender should be integrated from design to evaluation, throughout the project implementation cycle • A sound understanding of the local context in terms of gender inequality, disparities and constraints for women and men across life-stages • The gender objective (either a strategic objective or cross-cutting) should be based on: • How addressing and integrating gender will contribute to accomplishing the projects goals and objectives • how the project would want to have contributed to promoting gender equality by the end of the project • The RF’s and IPTT’s should integrate gender • Carefully consider how to implement the project to integrate and address gender for improved project outcomes • Measure, monitor, and evaluate gender in a way that is meaningful

19. This presentation is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the support of the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition, Bureau for Global Health, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (also include any additional USAID Bureaus, Offices, and Missions that provided funding as needed), under terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-12-00005, through FANTA, managed by FHI 360. The contents are the responsibility of FHI 360 and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.