THEME: Gender sensitization and training helps bridge the gap between design and implementation.
The IFAD-supported Project for Rural Development in the Central Region (PRODAP I) in El Salvador decided to address this problem head on. The situation is one in which a gender perspective is certainly useful. According to a 1999 evaluation report in El Salvador, about 21% of rural households are headed by women. Three common reasons for this are: the armed conflict of the past decade; the out-migration of males, especially to the United States and Mexico; and the prevalence of single mothers. Although other statistics indicate a higher rate of women receiving land (as high as 34%), the land registration statistics show only 10.7% of land parcels registered in womens names. While the division of labour varies from one household to another, women, and male and female children, are active in agricultural production. Womens crop production role tends to increase when the household grows vegetables, soybeans and fruit trees. Women are generally responsible for poultry, but often also manage livestock. In spite of the active productive role of rural women, PRODAP I encountered low participation by women in its activities and services. For instance, among those beneficiaries interested in receiving training on crop production, only 4% were women. The project staff noticed several constraints on the participation of women:
But constraints did not only exist on the side of the intended project beneficiaries. Project staff attitudes and behaviour towards women also needed to be changed. In addition, it was recognized that for changes to be sustained, it was important that the next generation support those changes. For this reason, the projects gender-sensitization activities included teachers, who are in a position to influence children. The project initiated a comprehensive training and sensitization programme, to be continued and expanded under the follow-up project (PRODAP II). Subject matter of gender sensitization varied according to types of participant (mangers/supervisors, technical teams, local leaders, service providers, men and women farmers, and so on). In the case of men and women farmers, some of the topics addressed were:
Initially, the pattern of participation in the gender training was found to be the reverse of what occurred in the technical training 30% of participants in gender training were men and 70% were women. Slowly this changed to a point where men were more equally involved. Evaluation showed that sensitization was having an impact. Gradually women began to participate more actively in project activities. The experience provided some generally applicable lessons:
Adapted from: IFAD. 1999. Proyecto de Desarrolo Rural en La Region Central (PRODAP II): Mision de Evaluation Ex-Ante, Anexo VI, Enfoque de Genero y Equidad. Rome.
|
|



IFAD
experience has shown that gender mainstreaming is frequently
not implemented as planned. Often the main cause has been lack of
appreciation for and understanding of gender issues among the project
actors. Barriers can exist at both the level of project staff
and the intended male and female project beneficiaries. As a result,
projects that have been well designed in gender terms often revert
during implementation to providing token recognition of womens
traditional activities or to ignoring gender differences altogether.