Presentation by Agnes Quisumbing, Chiara Kovarik, and Quinn Bernier from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

1. Agnes Quisumbing, Chiara Kovarik*, Quinn
Bernier
*(c.kovarik@cgiar.org)
Gender and Climate Smart
Agricultural Practices: Evidence
from Bangladesh

2. Gender and agriculture in Bangladesh
• Similar to other parts of South Asia, where
patrilineal and patriarchal systems prevail,
women in Bangladesh have much lower levels of
literacy, schooling, assets, and land than men
• As a result of lower education and other assets,
women in Bangladesh earn half of what men earn
• Production system involves joint (male and
female) farming on family farms; women rarely
recognized as farmers, and seldom are targeted
by extension services

3. Recognizing women as agricultural
producers
• Although still lower than
men’s, women’s
participation in agricultural
employment has been
increasing.
• Women tend to be involved
in homestead rather than
field crop production.
• Women are often more
involved in vegetable and
small livestock production,
because it does not violate
social norms of female
seclusion Source: BBS, Labour Force Survey, 199/00, 2002/03 and
2005/06

4. Bangladesh CCAFS
sites
Two different potential types of water
management systems:
--Bagerhat: medium saline, less potential
for groundwater access; easier to reach, so
more diversification options
- Satkhira: highly saline but with higher
potential for shallow groundwater
use due to less salinity intrusion into
groundwater; more difficult to reach but
borders West Bengal

5. Men have higher levels of human and physical capital
and stronger land rights than women
Male Female
Signficance
level
Age 46.15 37.85 ***
Years of schooling 4.99 4.41 **
Own assets 42.91 16.56 ***
Own livestock 1.06 8.51 ***
Own assets as a proportion of total
household assets 0.49 0.24 ***
Own livestock as a proportion of total
household livestock 0.08 0.66 ***
Whether owns land 0.61 0.05 ***
Whether decisionmaker 0.85 0.40 ***
***significant at 1%, ** significant at 5%, * significant at 10%

6. Men and women get information from different
sources
Males Females Significance
level
Agricultural information sources
Government extension services 0.28 0.07 ***
Agricultural service providers 0.04 0.00 ***
Farmer field days 0.12 0.01 ***
Group-based information sources
NGO 0.14 0.10
Community meetings 0.03 0.00 ***
Farmer orgs, coops, CBOs 0.02 0.01
Informal sources
Family members 0.13 0.05 ***
Neighbors 0.50 0.81 ***
Media, internet, and schools
Radio 0.72 0.88 ***
Television 0.58 0.32 ***
Newspaper/bulletin 0.87 0.55 ***
Schools/teacher 0.15 0.04 ***
Cell phone 0.02 0.01
Internet 0.02 0.01
Traditional sources
Traditional forecasters, indigenous knowledge, etc. 0.55 0.39 0.000

7. Awareness and adoption of CSA
practices with long-term benefits
Whether respondent
is aware of practice
Whether respondent adopted
practice in past year
if they were aware of it
Male Female Sig level Male Female p-value
Agroforestry 0.56 0.43 *** 0.08 0.05
Terracing 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.22
Water harvesting 0.27 0.17 *** 0.26 0.11 ***
Irrigation 0.97 0.97 0.63 0.53 ***
Planting pits 0.06 0.01 *** 0.08 0.20
Minimum tillage 0.30 0.27 0.07 0.03
Improved feed management 0.29 0.26 0.58 0.72 **
Grazing or rangeland
management 0.08 0.02 *** 0.08 0.11
Patterns of adoption, conditional on awareness, are consistent with spheres of
responsbility (men—agriculture and water control, women—livestock)

8. Awareness and adoption of CSA
practices with short-term benefits
Whether respondent is aware of
practice
Whether respondent adopted
practice in past year
if they were aware of it
Male Female p-value Male Female p-value
Applying crop residue 0.56 0.54 0.42 0.40
Composting 0.80 0.71 *** 0.38 0.37
Livestock manure management 0.63 0.61 0.53 0.35 ***
More efficient fertilizer use 0.87 0.57 *** 0.84 0.63 ***
Improved high yielding varieties 0.61 0.41 *** 0.58 0.44 ***
Planting stress-tolerant varieties 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.11
Destocking 0.14 0.02 *** 0.10 0.27 *
Cover cropping 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.02
Switch to drought tolerant
livestock 0.07 0.02 *** 0.10 0.11
Integrated pest management 0.78 0.63 *** 0.48 0.46

9. Analyzing adoption of CSA practices, conditional
on awareness
• Analyzing determinants of adoption needs to take into account
selectivity owing to endogeneity of awareness: men and women
who are more aware of these technologies may have different
characteristics, better access to information, compared to those
who don’t
• Approach is very similar to Kenya paper that uses a Heckman two-
step procedure

10. Summary of coefficient estimates of awareness of CSA practices with
long-term benefits
Relationship Variables Practice affected
Positive Years of schooling Terracing, irrigation, feed mgt
Total assets Agroforestry, min tillage
Total livestock Terracing
Having title Min tillage
Spouse aware Agroforestry, terracing, H2O harvest
Group based info Min tillage
Relatives/neighbors Agroforestry, irrigation, feed mgt
Media, internet, schools Agroforestry, irrigation, feed mgt
Traditional sources Agroforestry, terracing, feed mgt
Negative Being female Agroforestry, terracing, min tillage,
feed mgt
Total assets Terracing, H2O harvest
Traditional H20 harvest
Agricultural information sources do NOT affect awareness at all!

11. Summary of coefficient estimates of adoption of CSA practices with
long-term benefits
Relationship Variables Practice affected
Positive % livestock Minimum tillage
Respondent owns land;
gender decisionmaking
Agroforestry
Farm area; flood impact Water harvesting
Makes decisions on plot Terracing, irrigation
Crop shock, drought shock Feed management
Innovative orientation Terracing, feed management
Knowledge about crop,
livestock, pest management
Water harvesting, irrigation
Trust Irrigation
Negative Being female Min tillage
Schooling Terracing
% livestock Agroforestry
Flood impact Feed management
Gender decisionmaking Water harvesting

12. Summary of coefficient estimates of awareness of CSA practices with
short-term benefits
Relationsh
ip
Variables Practice affected
Positive Schooling Crop residue, composting
% assets owned Composting
Household assets Composting, HYV
Livestock Composting, cover crop
Spouse aware Crop residue, manure mgt, HYV, destocking
Agricultural info source Composting, fertilizer, destocking
Group info source HYV, cover crop
Relatives and neighbors Crop residue, composting, manure mgt,
destocking, cover crop
Media, internet, schools Fertilizer, HYV, destocking, cover crop, IPM
Traditional sources Composting, HYV, cover crop, IPM
Negative Being female Crop residue, composting, fertilizer, HYV,
destocking
Owns land; traditional Crop residue
Spouse aware IPM

13. Summary of coefficient estimates of adoption of CSA practices with
short-term benefits
Relationsh
ip
Variables Practice affected
Positive Being female Composting, destocking, cover cropping
Schooling Fertilizer use
Total assets Manure mgt, cover cropping
Farm area Crop residue, composting, manure mgt,
fertilizer, destocking, IPM
Crop shock Crop residue, destocking, cover cropping
Soil erosion Crop residue, composting, manure mgt,
fertilizer, HYV
Decides on plot Fertilizer, HYV, cover crop
Innovative Crop residue, cover crop
Extreme event Fertilizer, HYV, destocking
Negative % livestock Composting, destocking, cover cropping
Owns land Manure mgt, HYV
Farm area; female decision Cover cropping

14. Discussion and policy implications
• There are gender gaps in awareness and adoption, but
conditional on awareness, gender gaps in adoption are
less stark
• Implication: improve reach of CSA-related information;
improve traditional agricultural extension systems’
messaging, particularly on practices with long-term
benefits
• Agricultural extension systems need to reach women
farmers through better messaging, employment of
female extension agents, etc.
• Also explore other ways of disseminating information
that may be less biased against women: radio, social
networks, ICT (phone and internet)

15. Future analysis
– Explore more fully how production
systems affect adoption of CSA
practices
– Explore implications of
diversification of production
systems from fish to shrimp culture
– Explore social capital and
institutional factors more
– Draw out differences between
South Asia and Bangladesh
findings—how do culture and
context matter for gender
differences in CSA adoption?
IFPRI Images

16. Thank you!
Questions?
Contact Chiara Kovarik:
c.kovarik@cgiar.org