THEME: African women farmers, like men, may be poor and with little access to technology, but they have clear ideas about what they want and do not want in their agricultural implements. An 1997 IFAD/FAO/Government of Japan study of women’s agricultural implements in five countries in Africa based its methodology largely on focus groups. In all, the researchers had extensive talks with some 1 500 women and men farmers. In the course of these discussions, the women expressed their views on the tools they knew. Criticism as well as praise is useful in highlighting what types of features women farmers look for in their agricultural implements. (The features listed are not in any order of importance.) Implements Should Not Be Too Heavy In Africa, women often farm with young children on their backs, and when they are pregnant or ill. Heavy implements are therefore very difficult for them to use. The ox-drawn five-tine cultivator built in Zimbabwe, which is also used by women in Zambia, is one of the many examples of implements that are too heavy. Women claim they cannot handle this cultivator when turning, and cannot turn the lever that adjusts the cultivator’s working width. They also complain about the zig-zag harrow, saying that they cannot lift it around obstacles. There were also many complaints, in all countries, about heavy hoes. Implements Should Be Easy for Women to Control Animal-traction implements are the most common example of implements with control problems. The Zimbabwe animal-traction implements with handles are criticized for having handles that are too high and not able to be adjusted. The Zimbabwe ox-carts are criticized for their lack of brakes, which can lead to accidents. Implements Should Not Wear Out Quickly Durability is highly prized by women and men farmers everywhere. The Finland hoe imported by an early IFAD project in Uganda and the Chinese Cock hoe are praised for their durability and their ability to maintain a sharp edge. But there is much criticism for other implements. Most tools everywhere seem to have a relatively short lifespan, particularly those that are made locally, usually out of inferior materials. But even the soil-engaging parts and the land wheel of animal traction implements may have to be replaced every one to three months. Most inexpensive hoes seem to last about a year. The ox-carts used in Zimbabwe are a problem because their pneumatic tires do not last very long and women find it difficult to repair the tires’ punctures. The ploughs in Senegal are another example: they have no rear wheel to help transport them to and from the field, so when people tire from carrying them, they resort to dragging them, usually wearing out the right handle. Implements Should Be Easy to Repair Imported industrially made implements generate repair difficulties most often for lack of local access to spare parts. This is not as serious a problem as it might be, however, because local blacksmiths are often able to custom make a spare part for such an implement. Implements Should Not Be Wasteful A good example of a wasteful implement is the improved groundnut lifter introduced in Senegal, which leaves groundnuts in the soil. Women have resisted it because it reduces their income from gleaned groundnuts. Implements Should Not Harm a Woman’s Reputation The long-handled hoe is the most common example of a socio-culturally inappropriate implement in most of the countries studied. Its use tends to be associated with prisoners, nomads, workers on commercial farms and people who are lazy. While easier to use than the traditional short-handled hoe, the long-handled hoe is seen by women as a tool that would subject them to ridicule and shame them and their husbands. Implements Should Not Be Too Expensive Because the study took place in poorer farming areas, almost all implements came up for criticism for being too expensive. However, the local blacksmith equivalents are much cheaper than the industrially manufactured versions, in the case both of animal-traction implements and of hand tools. The study underlines the gap between the manufacturers of agricultural implements and poor women farmers, who are probably the main users of many of the hand tools those manufacturers produce. Manufacturers admit that tools are made with men in mind. They do not think in terms of women’s needs and do not conduct market research on or get feedback from women farmers. Development programmes can help bridge this gap by placing more emphasis on the use of gender-appropriate agricultural implements in development projects and involving private-sector manufacturers and importers and village blacksmiths. Adapted from: IFAD/FAO/Government of Japan. 1998. Agricultural Implements Used by Women Farmers in Africa. Rome. |
|
 |
 |
 |