Gender and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms ...

Download PDF
20 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Comment
Jul 20, 2018 - der mainstreaming through the equitable sharing of benefits sup- .... begins with a clear definition of the construct of interest, which in this.
Community Development

ISSN: 1557-5330 (Print) 1944-7485 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20

Gender and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms through Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Rwanda Rahma I. Adam, Michael Misiko, Leonidas Dusengemungu, Pascal Rushemuka & Zahara Mukakalisa To cite this article: Rahma I. Adam, Michael Misiko, Leonidas Dusengemungu, Pascal Rushemuka & Zahara Mukakalisa (2018): Gender and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms through Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Rwanda, Community Development, DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2018.1496465 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1496465

Published online: 20 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcod20

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2018.1496465

Gender and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms through Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Rwanda Rahma I. Adama, Michael Misikoa, Leonidas Dusengemungub, Pascal Rushemukab, and Zahara Mukakalisab a

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), c/o The World Agroforestry Center, ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 1041, 0062, Nairobi, Kenya; bRwanda Agricultural Board (RAB), South Zone, Rubona, P.O. Box 5016, Kigali, Rwanda ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

The low level of participation of women in the marketing and selling of crops in some patriarchal societies in the developing world has been documented. This article uses a case studies approach to document in detail two successful Agricultural Innovation Platforms (AIPs), out of nine studied, in order to understand what makes a successful AIP. The study shows that AIP activities in Rwanda are contributing to the achievement of gender mainstreaming through the equitable sharing of benefits supported by social, policy, and capacity factors. The article then provides evidence of how such policy or social factors are operationalized; how AIPs utilize policy; and how AIP processes integrate with local social norms and capital.

Received 2 November 2017 Accepted 1 July 2018 KEYWORDS

Agricultural Innovation Platforms; benefits; gender; Rwanda

Introduction Social norms can influence the intra-household bargaining power of men and women. It can, for example, weaken women’s bargaining position by constraining their participation and earning potential at different stages of the agricultural value chain. Several studies have shown that in some patriarchal societies in Africa and some parts of Asia, women are restricted in their participation in the marketing and selling of agricultural produce, despite having been involved in the production of these commodities (Agarwal, 1997; Doss, 2001). In Kagera region, Tanzania, a study on gender relations and bean production by Adam (2011) reported that women were excluded from engaging directly with traders in selling beans, which was the sole preserve of men; hence, the women interviewed sold small amounts of beans without their husband’s knowledge. A study by Agarwal (1997) showed that there were numerous cases of rural women from South Asia living under norms of social seclusion, who were covertly trying to get cash that they could control by secretly engaging in income-generating activities, such as selling small amounts of household grain without the knowledge of their husbands or in-laws. These and similar findings illustrate the need to search for practical

CONTACT Rahma I. Adam, [email protected] International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), c/o The World Agroforestry Center, ICRAF House, United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 1041, 0062. © 2018 Community Development Society

2

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

rural institutional processes that ensure that marginalized men and women participate and gain benefits equitably in rural development. Focusing on rural innovation can be beneficial, as it contributes to rural development and reduced levels of poverty. Rural innovation requires collaborative efforts that largely depend on organizational partnerships, institutional practices, norms, and policy environments. The Agricultural Innovations Platform (AIP) approach has therefore been the soughtafter model for resolving some of the problems farmers face, by creating opportunities for enhancing the innovation capacity of agricultural systems (Kilelu, Klerkx, & Leeuwis, 2013), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). AIPs acknowledge that innovation occurs through the collective action of multiple stakeholders along the value chain. These stakeholders are farmers, traders, agro-dealers, food processers, researchers, extension agents, and government officials, among others (Birachi et al., 2013). The benefits of collective action are key for development and for encouraging smallholder agricultural development in SSA (Kilelu et al., 2013), and are influenced by factors such as the technology, infrastructure, markets, policies, rules and regulations, and cultural practices of a given village.

Gender and agricultural innovation platforms Mapila and Makina (2011), in their study evaluating the impacts of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) on livelihood improvements in Malawi, show that policies and programs incorporating innovation system concepts need to ensure deliberate gender facilitation that takes into account intra- and inter-household dynamics. They conclude that institutionalization of AIS is only possible if it is supported through regular and increased budgetary support, including support for the capacity-building enhancement of frontline service staff. Sarapura (2011), in a study done in Peru, further shows that technical innovation needs to take place along with institutional innovation, and that gender focus must be ingrained in this process in order for it to benefit women as innovators and beneficiaries of value chains. Although AIPs encounter several challenges, they nevertheless have a positive impact on agricultural innovations that have sparked transformations within the sector. Observing and recording platform progress is key to understanding the specific conditions and issues that influence platform performance. Once these issues and conditions have been identified, AIPs are able to create platform-led innovation funds that are considered to be incubators, ensuring that platforms are innovative enough to advance their position as independent and self-organized entities (Schut et al., 2015). There is an ever-increasing need to have efforts at agricultural intensification programmed for efficiency, and to ensure that benefits accrue equitably among men and women smallholder farmers. AIPs offer many promises, yet we do not have evidence of the long-term sustainability of gendered benefits. We do not know if AIPs can be vehicles of gender-equality policy implementation in the agricultural sector. The current study is largely about this, using AIPs in Rwanda as a point of reference. This study documents and analyzes lessons for guiding gender mainstreaming elsewhere.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

3

Methodology Data collection This study employed qualitative methods to study the AIPs in Rwanda. Data collection was accomplished through (i) involving men and women members of the AIPs, who participated in the focus group discussions (FGDs); and (ii) involving management members of the AIPs, such as president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer, who took part in the key informant interviews (KIIs). The management members of the AIPs were able to provide detailed recorded information about production, sales levels of the agricultural goods found within the AIP, and training received by members of AIPs, among other relevant information. Data collection was done from the end of June 2015 to May 2016. We used Participatory Audit (P-Audit), the main tool used to estimate benefits, gender, and sharing in the AIPs (Misiko, 2016), and triangulated the data through case research. P-Audit is structured and designed to generate both numeric and qualitative data, and can equally well be administered by non-social scientists. P-Audit is based on Likert’s summative scaling method (Clason & Dormody, 1994); however, rating of benefits is done by knowledgeable informants on a scale of 0–3 and X in an interactive workshop setup, rather than by judges (i.e. scientists). In this study, 0 was used for no benefits; 1 for weak occurrence of benefits; 2 for reasonable or average manifestation of benefits; 3 for sufficient benefits with respect to the desired target; and X for unknown existence of benefits or their causality (Misiko, 2016). Like the Likert method (Likert, 1932), the P-Audit begins with a clear definition of the construct of interest, which in this case are the benefits, as noted in Tables 3 and 4. Participants in the study, specifically, main informants in the P-Audit workshopstyle FGDs, were farmers purposively selected from the membership of nine AIPs identified after a preliminary exploration of success/failure among 18 AIPs established in Rwanda. Purposive sampling was used to select informants, based on their unfettered access to AIP information, records, and history. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the researchers from the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) of Rwanda, namely the Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB), which is under the Ministry of Agricultural and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), worked together to narrow down the list of 18 AIPs to 9 AIPs for further study. Data presented in Table 1 illustrate three levels of AIP development and maturity (sustainability of benefits). Table 1. AIPs selected for the sample, with details of location, year of formation, and degree of success. A = Successful (developed); B = Partially successful (maturity but struggling with at least one important limiting challenge), and C = Failed (did not progress beyond original support – benefits not sustained). Table 1 above shows the distribution of failed, partially successful, or successful AIPs. Key criteria for success were based on preliminary interviews that examined five crucial factors: (i) business entrepreneurship and profit; (ii) regular generation of benefits, shared equitably among men, women, and youths; (iii) the forming of relationships (linkages) beyond those originally established by the initiating project; (iv) strong village-

4

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

Table 1. AIPs selected for the sample, with details of location, year of formation, and degree of success. No. Name of the AIP 1 Cassava Innovation Platform/KIAI 2 Huguka Mudende 3 Isangano Gataraga 4 Terimbere-Rugeshi 5 Twegerane 6 Twishakirumuti-Gashora 7 Kopabimu-Muse Bivumu 8 Maize Innovation Platform 9 Turwanyisuri-Gasharu

Province District East Gatsibo

Classification Successful

West North North South East South East South

Successful Successful Successful Partially successful Successful Partially successful Failed Partially successful

Rubavu Musanze Burera Kamonyi Bugesera Nyamagabe Nyagatare Muhanga

Distance to Est. time to Year nearest market Kigali started (km) (hours) 2007 3 2 2008 2008 2014 2014 2014 2005 2007 2005

26 2 6 9 3 3 1 5

5 4 5 3 1.5 4 3 1

based organizations or cooperatives, progressing beyond the original AIP idea; and (v) multi-functionality, geared for broad benefits. After a further study of the nine AIPs, six were selected for in-depth analysis. Terimbere Rugeshi was the only woman-led AIP, and was therefore chosen for detailed analysis instead of Twishakirumuti-Gashora. The two other successful AIPs chosen for further, in-depth study were Huguka Mudende and Isangano Gataraga. One partially successful AIP, Twegerane, was selected for in-depth analysis. The Cassava AIP was chosen because it was a unique case; the original structure was formed in 2007, when the group was less cohesive and had not attracted substantial donor support. This structure collapsed and now exists as a cooperative. RAB initially classified the Cassava AIP (in abbreviated form known as KIAI) as partially successful. However, we can draw valuable lessons from the experience the platform gained in development and policy formulation, and the fact that KIAI is now able to exist as a business enterprise is commendable, making it to be in a category of successful AIPs. Finally, a Maize Innovation Platform from the Eastern Province, Nyagatare District, was selected for analysis as a failed AIP. Case research was done to triangulate data (Nachmias-Frankfort & Nachmias, 2008). Case research was needed for historical recounting, following up qualitative data, and examining records presented by the AIPs’ key informants. Case studies were used to understand the reasons for success or failure of the six above-noted AIPs, namely: KIAI, Huguka Mudende, Isangano Gataraga, Terimbere Rugeshi, Twegerane, and Maize Innovation Platform. Participation was voluntary, and interviews took place in AIP premises or in neutral venues selected by the AIP membership. In each of the FGDs, men and women were equally represented, with at least five men and five women in each FGD, in order to capture the benefits derived from AIPs, and the challenges and constraints faced by both men and women in terms of inputs, market access, and post-harvest handling. At the end of each of the FGD interviews (where both men and women were present), in order to understand the issues, if any, faced by women, male members of the AIPs were asked to leave the premises so that women were left alone in the room. This provided the women with an opportunity to present any concerns that they might have had with regard to being in the AIPs. Interviewers were assisted by note-takers. Direct observation was critical in understanding AIP investments and smallholder benefits at the household level.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

5

Data analysis Qualitative data from the FGDs were coded for textual analysis. Data recorded in the field were typed in the MS word computer program and then uploaded in Nvivo software for analysis. The Principal Investigator developed a coding tree classifying different themes that were used to manually code the data in Nvivo, ensuring that all data were coded in a sex-disaggregated way wherever possible and then analyzed. The themes formed column headings of the coding matrix, while each transcript was coded in a row. For instance, the answers to question (a): “What benefits does each actor get and how are these benefits shared among men and women?” were classified under the code crop-related, farm productivity-related, business-related, social, environmental, and infrastructural. Answers to the following four sets of questions: (b) “Where do the members sell their produce?”; (c) “How are the proceeds shared?”; (d) “What type of dividends do AIPs/cooperatives pay?”; and (e) “How are those dividends distributed among men and women members of the AIP?”, were classified under the code marketing and profit sharing. We used the procedures outlined by Creswell (2007), which started by open line-by-line coding, which sharpens the use of sensitizing concepts. For the purpose of this article, we focus on documenting only two AIPs: Huguka Mudende and KIAI. We chose to focus on these two because they provided us with key tangible lessons upon which to draw for the purposes of this study. Most importantly, these are the two AIPs that have reached maturity and are at the stage where they are able to sustain themselves and operate as small business enterprises. They provide a good model that can be emulated by other smallholder farmers who want to work collectively to address their economic and social needs. Huguka Mudende and KIAI show that there are two stages of AIP growth: stage one is the first five to seven years, when AIPs are dependent on donors, the government, and a few inputs from private funds; in stage two, more private capital becomes available, and initial investments are made in market concepts. At this stage, the AIPs that have survived initial challenges are realizing larger dividends. Furthermore, both AIPs show that a new model of training is emerging, in which there is a balance between supply and demand and between social and business relationships, and there are good relations between farmers and business providers.

Results Each of the two studied AIPs had a niche crop or product that its time and resources were concentrated on producing. Huguka Mudende specialized in producing Irish potato seed, Irish potatoes for consumption, and milk, and KIAI specialized in producing cassava flour.

Membership composition of the AIPs Membership of any of the AIPs was voluntary. In terms of membership fees, when Huguka Mudende was started in 2008 membership was free; however, in 2015, the membership fee was RWF 50,000 per member. KIAI has not imposed any membership fee since it started in 2007 until now. Table 2. Membership composition of Huguka Mudende and KIAI. (Insert Table 2 here.)

6

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

Table 2. Membership composition of Cassava Innovation Platform (KIAI) and Huguka Mudende. AIP 1 Cassava Innovation Platform (KIAI) 2 Huguka Mudende

No. of farmer groups 5

Avg. number per group 30

No. of women 74

% of women 58

No. of men 54

% of men 42

Total membership 128

23

24

226

37

384

63

610

Table 2 shows that there are more men than women members in Huguka Mudende (63% men and 37% women), while there are more women members than men in KIAI (42% men and 58% women). KIAI has more women members than men because men in that particular village have more opportunities for alternative off-farm economic activities. There is still a need to have greater participation by women at all levels.

AIP benefits and gender This section presents AIP benefits that were documented for Huguka Mudende and KIAI. These benefits are grouped into five categories: crop-related, business-related, social, environment-related, and infrastructural.

Crop-related and farm productivity-related benefits KIAI enjoyed strong benefits in terms of cassava yield before the outbreak of cassava mosaic disease in 2016, when average yield was experienced, as indicated in Table 3 (benefit level 2). For Huguka Mudende, production of Irish potatoes and milk yield had both greatly increased, as indicated in Table 4 (benefit level 3). (a) KIAI: In terms of mode of operation, the AIP members farm separately in their own plots and bring the cassava produce to the AIP. Both the quality and quantity of production have increased; in 2012, the smallest amount produced was 30 kg and the largest was 500 kg/supplying member year−1; in 2015, the smallest amount was 1 ton and the largest 12 tons/supplying member year−1. Thus, over three years, the production of cassava increased by about 3,233% on the maximum side and 2,333% on the minimum side. In addition, processing of cassava has increased over the years. In 2012, the processing unit received 20 tons and in 2015, it received 96 tons. This increase was directly linked to KIAI-organized trainings among cassava suppliers. There was also a quantum leap in price and change of crop status: due to the crop’s high quality, price increased from RWF 5 kg−1 in 2008 to RWF 50 kg−1 in 2016. The success story of KIAI is more about quality than about volume of production, given that market prices are heavily influenced by product quality. This has transformed cassava from a subsistence crop to a highly regarded cash crop, embraced by men as well as women, which was not the case in 2012. Table 3. Benefits, level of attainment, and estimated attribution among KIAI members. (a) Huguka Mudende:

Overall score of benefits (success indicator)

Infrastructural

Environment related

Social (e.g. table banking, labor sharing)

Business related – cassava flour

AIP activity type (specify) Crop related – cassava

Donor funds 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 3 3 14 Marketing 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 37

Level of direct attribution to:

List of main benefits reported/observed (by Level of actual 2016) related to AIP benefits Processing Partnerships Yield increase (%) 2 3 3 Drought tolerance 0 0 0 0 0 0 H2O use efficiency Crop diversity 2 3 3 Disease/pest tolerance X 0 0 Higher income (%) 3 3 0 Market access (specify) 3 0 0 Better agribusiness(es) 3 0 0 Lower input costs 0 0 0 More capital (e.g. credit 1 0 0 Youth participation 1 0 0 Women’s participation 3 3 0 Better nutrition 3 3 3 Better societal harmony 3 0 0 Reduced drudgery 3 3 0 Reduced soil erosion 3 0 0 Reduced weeds 3 0 0 Better soil health 3 0 3 Better water retention 0 0 0 Better habitat (incl. soil C) 3 0 3 New business building 3 0 3 New feeder road/path 0 0 0 New processing center 3 0 3 Farmer resource center 3 0 0 Better produce storage 3 3 0 51 21 21 30

Table 3. Benefits, level of attainment, and estimated attribution among KIAI AIP membership.

1 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

Training/ ex. visits 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0

AIP women 1 1 0 1 1 1 58 1 1 1 58 1 1 60 1 1 1 1 58 1 1 1

AIP men 1 1 0 1 1 1 42 1 1 1 42 1 1 40 1 1 1 1 42 1 1 1

Sharing ratio

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7

Overall score of benefits (success indicator) Maximum possible success score Percent success

Infrastructural

Environment related

Social (e.g. table banking, labor sharing)

Business related

AIP activity type (specify) Crop related -potatoes for consumption and for seed

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 39

3 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

Processing Partnerships 0 3

0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 23

3 0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

Donor funds 3

0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39

2 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 0 0

Marketing 2

Key: 0 = None 1 = Weak 2 = Average 3 = Strong X = Unknown

3 3 3 1 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0

Women’s participation Better nutrition Better societal harmony Reduced drudgery Reduced soil erosion Reduced weeds Better soil health Better water retention Better habitat (incl. soil C) New business building New feeder road/path New processing center Farmer resource center Better produce storage 60

81 75

3 X 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3

Level of actual benefit 0

Drought tolerance H2O use efficiency Crop diversity Disease/pest tolerance Higher income (%) Market access (Potatoes) Milk volume increase (%) Market access (milk) Better agribusiness(es) Lower input costs More capital (e.g. credit Youth participation

List of main benefits reported/observed (by 2016) related to AIP Yield increase (%)

Level of direct attribution to:

Table 4. Benefits, level of attainment, and estimated attribution among Huguka Mudende AIP membership.

3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

3 0 0 0 3

3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 3

Training/ E. visits 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AIP AIP Men Women 1 1

Sharing ratio

8 R. I. ADAM ET AL.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

9

The AIP’s current mode of operation is that the farmer elects to work collectively, producing basic seed in a small group of 24. When farmers get seed, they share it with the members at a low price. The AIP uses rented land to farm that has been acquired from the Cooperative for Development Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (CODAF), and the AIP rents 10 ha at a fee of RWF 500,000/hectare/year. The production volume of Irish potatoes increased 150% from 10 tons/hectare in 2008 to 25 tons/hectare in 2010. The yield of milk increased 600% from 1 L per local-breed cow in 2008 to 7 L per local-breed cow in 2016. Unfortunately, the AIP does not process the potatoes or seed produced, although sorting of potatoes is done prior to selling. Moreover, the AIP does not have the capacity to process milk, although the members of the AIP would like to be able to make yogurt and cheese for sale. Table 4. Benefits, level of attainment, and estimated attribution among Huguka Mudende members. RAB provided Huguka Mudende and KIAI with improved varieties of seed. Overall, in both AIPs, both women and men members noted that they were better off economically and food security-wise than they were before joining the AIP. They also enjoyed business, social, environmental, and infrastructural benefits that they did not have before joining.

Business-related benefits Huguka Mudende and KIAI handled complex situations that needed highly developed skills in three value chains, and that were beyond the abilities of individual local actors. These attracted more earnings. Benefits were gained by Huguka Mudende mainly from the sale of produce (potatoes) and milk, and by KIAI mainly from the sale of processed flour. The benefits from business-related activities were the mainstay of these AIPs, marking the stage of maturity, characterized by donor (government and international partners) support through investments, and not through donations per se. Huguka Mudende and KIAI offer clear lessons: all donor, research, skills, and partnership investments were focused on sustainability through business and social progress. Investments in skills in a) processing; b) AIP partnerships; c) infrastructure, machines/vehicles; d) produce-marketing networks; and e) trainings, were all geared toward the generation of benefits and sustainability through business. These benefits applied to income, market access, enterprise skills, and credit access. The two AIPS gained higher incomes resulting from the sale of milk, potatoes, and cassava flour to better markets after storage, and accrued this higher income to members as dividends. In terms of better market access for members and other farmers, the AIPs offered the broad advantage of ease of access to distant markets for all village residents. Huguka Mudende had one private trader for potatoes, who had his potato center within the village. On the other hand, there were several traders involved in the milk business, although this was not always beneficial. With regard to enterprise skills, Huguka Mudende and KIAI have become magnets for new enterprises, especially small agribusinesses supplying farm inputs, to meet the growing demand for quantity and quality produce. Especially for KIAI, processing (of cassava) earns members more income through value addition. It also offers facilities for cleaning cassava, a service highly appreciated by women. Finally, credit is made more accessible though collective collateral, government subsidies, or better negotiations.

10

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

Huguka Mudende received a loan (although the AIP leaders were not able to recall the total amount) that was used to develop a washing station for Irish potatoes. Josephine Mukankus, a female member of the AIP and local potato trader who supplies supermarkets and restaurants in Kigali city, received a loan of RWF 3,000,000 in 2012, which enabled her to meet market requirements and give credit to farmers. She was also able to acquire a three-wheeled motorcycle for collecting potatoes. Due to her hard work and success, she was awarded a cow by Cropping Rwanda Society for her innovations in the potato sub-sector.

Social benefits Societal harmony is the most indirect of all the benefits but is commonly referred to as a benefit. AIPs bring together diverse actors (at household or higher levels) to collaborate, rely on complementarity, and reduce competition. Benefits include increased yields, resulting in better nutrition and higher incomes, which in turn reduce conflicts and theft. Huguka Mudende AIP members had benefited more than any other AIP from the integration of livestock with crop enterprises, which has significantly improved the nutrition of members. Compared to KIAI, Huguka Mudende is more multifunctional, integrating the businesses of milk and potatoes, and thus generating more social benefits. However, there are useful lessons to be learned from KIAI. The Government of Rwanda is promoting local processing to improve the quality of food for households and to encourage farmers and other parties working in the agricultural sector to focus on value addition. KIAI is a very good illustration of how this works. By offering cassava cleaning, drying, and milling commercially at KIAI, not only is a major source of drudgery for women removed, but members also receive the ensuing benefits. Hence this venture could be a model for other AIPS to emulate. Environment-related benefits Huguka Mudende and KIAI AIP members have had trainings targeted at reducing soil erosion. For instance, growing forage crops along contour bands was mainly a local government initiative in partnership with RAB. Better soil health (resulting in better yields), including more organic C in the soil due to more biomass in local farms, was directly related to (a) cow loans: members of Huguka Mudende had access to these, and were thus able to get more quality farmyard manure; (b) agronomic and soil fertility training from RAB; and (c) better field practices (e.g. spacing, manure application, and weed management). However, on the downside, neither of the successful AIPs has experienced a reduction in the quantity of weeds. This is primarily because the members do not use herbicides: the Government of Rwanda has banned the use of herbicides in the interests of environmental protection. Again, both men and women farmers share these benefits (Tables 3 and 4). Infrastructural benefits These were the most visible of the benefits for both KIAI (as indicated in Table 3) and Huguka Mudende (as indicated in Table 4). The conferring of this particular type of benefit teaches us that an AIP needs multiple partners in order to enjoy a greater diversity of benefits. With good organization, and targeted, early infrastructural

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

11

investments through direct donor assistance, Huguka Mudende and KIAI have succeeded in potato, milk, and cassava enterprises. They own or hold several assets. KIAI has the following assets: (a) a flour processing plant (machinery and housing); (b) a produce cleaning and drying facility (highly regarded by local women for its role in reducing drudgery); (c) a front office that serves as a resource center for members and non-members for the dissemination of knowledge and materials and for trainings; (d) storage facilities for fresh cassava produce and for flour; (e) a 10-ton lorry for transporting supplies and products; and (f) land from the government for farming and infrastructure. Huguka Mudende has the following assets: (a) a greenhouse for growing potatoes; (b) land for the building and a parcel of land for growing potatoes, rented from the Cooperative for Development of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (CODAF) at an annual rental fee of RWF 500,000 ha−1; (c) a milk collection center; (d) a storage center for potato seed; (e) a small store for parallel household needs, through MINAGRI investments; and (f) a feeder road, constructed and maintained by local government, largely because of this AIP. Most of these infrastructural benefits listed are shared with non-AIP members in the communities. Huguka Mudende and KIAI have expanded businesses and offer competitive prices for their produce. These competitive prices are supported by access to markets in Kigali and other major consumer areas across Rwanda. However, when KIAI and Huguka Mudende source milk, cassava, or potatoes from non-AIP farms, they often pay directly to heads of households. This means that better prices do not necessarily mean more equitable earnings to the youth, men, and women who produced the supplies. Equitability only applies to suppliers who belong to these AIPs and therefore have an entitlement.

Attribution of benefits Tables 3 and 4 show that in the case of both AIPs, direct support by donors played a key part in all the benefits gained; this is made clear by the presence of significant infrastructure and/or assets, such as new buildings, vehicles, storage facilities, and machinery. Trained personnel with a high level of proficiency are needed to manage these investments, and for marketing and accountancy, and hence the trainings that were also directly provided through donor funding are highly valued.

Direct donor funds and other contributions, including in kind, skills, and knowledge Huguka Mudende has had several donors, ranging from the government, non-governmental organizations, and research establishments, to private entities. The following include the contributions from these entities. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) paid for a milk production technician, and through RAB, trained farmers to grow animal forage crops. In 2014 the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) and Le Bureau d’Appui aux Initiatives Rurales (BAIR) helped farmers build a greenhouse to grow potato seed. The Rwandan Government provided land to the AIP, which was used to build the milk collection facility. The Bank of Rwanda Development (BRD) gave to Huguka Mudende a loan with a government guarantee and 40% subsidy to purchase a milk storage facility. Huguka Mudende members who owned cows contributed RWF

12

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

6,000,000 toward the construction of the milk storage facility (about 60% of the total cost). The Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) donated milk containers to Huguka Mudende. Inyange, a milk and juice industry in the private sector, provided small containers for milk storage to Huguka Mudende on loan. URWEGO, a local bank, provided loans to Huguka Mudende members to buy cows. The AIP acted as a guarantor of the loan for members. All farmers who took the loan repaid through milk sale proceeds. Each cow cost RWF 500,000. Specifically, the loans were as follows: RWF 500,000 x 68 farmers = RWF 34,000,000 in 2010; RWF 500,000 x 51 farmers = RWF 25,500,000 in 2012. An interest rate of 18% was given, and all the recipients repaid the loans progressively from 2010 to 2015 and have completed repayment. A local Saving and Credits Cooperative (SACCO) provided Huguka Mudende with a loan of about RWF 1,500,000 in 2010 to buy electric cables for the milk collection facility. The interest rates given by the SACCO were also fixed at 18% of the total loan. KIAI has also had several donors. The United States African Development Foundation (USADF), along with the government (through RAB), provided money for trainings. The Rwandan Government provided land to KIAI. KIAI benefited from United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) funding through RAB and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), for the initiation of the Cassava Innovation Platform (CIP). CIP however collapsed and was inherited by KIAI. Most KIAI assets were acquired with the assistance of direct investments by USADF, and the Rwandan government, specifically, MINAGRI.

Trainings and exchange visits The benefits of trainings and exchange visits included: transfer of knowledge, regarded as the biggest legacy of AIPs; agricultural improvement trainings, mainly in producing quality seed that met set standards, and quality products (e.g. cassava) for supermarket sale, seed conservation, marketing, business and processing, and project management; and trainings in machine operation or other infrastructure-related trainings. In addition, because farmers employed better agronomic practices, they were better able to manage soil erosion and to control diseases or pests in the crops that they grew. Partnerships Partnerships in both AIPs were mainly initiated by RAB. RAB exited after the stabilization of the AIPs, which was characterized by an increased role of the private sector. RAB and the private sector, along with donor projects and the government, played complementary roles in catalyzing the generation of benefits. RAB and the sector administration ensured that AIP/cooperative actors understood public policy on equitable participation and benefits sharing. In the case of the two studied AIPs, RAB played a leading role by providing germplasm, agronomic-related trainings, and AIP facilitation skills that directly resulted in increased production and sale of potatoes (as described above). Likewise, the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) provided Terimbere Rugeshi with seed and trainings on wheat production as part of a project. Farmers received the training in 2014, the year the AIP was established.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

13

Challenges faced by the aips The success of the AIPs depended significantly on the quality of their leadership. However, there existed numerous challenges to be tackled. Overall, failure of AIPs stemmed from several factors, including the following: (i) Poor leadership: strong leadership was a key factor in driving success in both Huguka Mudende and KIAI. Maize Innovation Platform is one of the AIPs that completely failed; it did not progress beyond the original support it received from the initial donors, which were Research Into Use (RIU), RAB, Rwanda Development Organization (RDO), Farmer Cooperatives, and Duterimbers. (ii) Gender had not been embedded in their core business. For example, KopabimuMuse Bivumu AIP, whose goal was to reduce poverty and improve nutrition through agricultural productivity and livestock rearing, did not do well because there was no proper plan or structure put in place to ensure gender equality in the distribution of benefits generated from the AIP’s activities. (iii) They were wholly dependent on the Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) project.1 SIMLESA is one of the biggest of CIMMYT’s projects, operating mainly in five countries in Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania, and in three spillover countries, also in Africa: Botswana, Rwanda, and Uganda. Moreover, the dependent AIPs did not clearly understand the AIP concept. There was no diversification of partners and linkages, which was of critical importance in the success of Huguka Mudende and KIAI, as noted above. Indeed, this lack of diversification was observed in the case of Twegerane Runda AIP, which was initiated by SIMLESA and completely dependent on the project funds to run its activities. (iv) Facilitation was not consistent – initiators did not play a catalytic role. Lack of strong leadership in the platforms resulted in irregularity of AIP meetings and low attendance. There were misunderstandings between members, who were unable to think in terms of the operations of the AIP, and there were no funds for the treasurers to manage. (v) In spite of their close proximity to Kigali and nearby markets, failed AIPs had not created a clear business niche. This was observed in the case of Twegerane Runda AIP, which focused on producing maize, beans, and amaranthus: it did not become successful partly because it failed to invest in strong value chains. The successes of Huguka Mudende and KIAI AIPs are largely or directly attributable to their swift initial creation of a business niche. (vi) The AIP members did not have a business mindset. This was the case for nearly all the unsuccessful AIPs, including the Maize Innovation Platform; the principal cause of this problem was the lack of cohesion among group members. The underlying success of AIPs is that they are anchored on cooperatives, as is the case with KIAI. Such cooperatives/AIPs have become epicenters of success for both members and non-members, and most farmers who joined after the formation of KIAI did not clearly recall the parent platform, meaning the Cassava Innovation

14

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

Platform, which dissolved and made way for KIAI. Investments from different partners, leadership ability, and skills of the AIP members have all contributed to the success of KIAI.

What can agricultural policy do? Gender mainstreaming and strategic interests require two elements: (i) the integration of a gender perspective into the preparation, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, regulating measures, and spending programs; and (ii) addressing the issue of the representation of women and men in the given policy area (e.g. Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, 2010), with the goal of promoting equality between women and men and combating discrimination. In addition, mainstreaming is a process that involves men and women in collective processes that require systematic investments and mentoring of leadership to coordinate plans, as is illustrated by successful AIPs. Findings show that successful AIPs provide a mechanism that ensures equitable benefits for the men and women participating in the agricultural sector. How that was achieved for KIAI and Huguka Mudende was through the measures described below. Payment of dividends was made directly to each member of the AIP, at the end of an agreed period of time, and after a profitable turnover. No surrogate applicants, meaning spouse, dependent, or representative, were allowed to claim payment of benefits, and these payments were based on number of shares, proof of participation, and balance of the individual’s account, meaning that the account was clear of any loan or debt owed to the cooperative or AIP. Payments for produce supplied to the processing, storage, or business centers were made directly to the AIP member who signed for the supply. Moreover, a member could not be paid on behalf of their spouse who signed for produce delivery, thus reducing confusion and conflicts. However, it is important to point out that even though the benefits were given directly to the member of the AIP (whether a man or a woman), the dividends were enjoyed by the whole family of the member; this was especially true for female members of the AIP. Further studies need to be done to check if the benefits gained by male members of the AIP really benefited their household members. One key policy suggestion is that an AIP or any farming-based association should be institutionalized at the national level to reduce the informality of the organization, so that finance (budget) and strategies to operationalize its activities are standardized across the country, in order to increase the welfare of the society as a whole. Policies that provide favorable conditions for private sector actors to partner with AIPs or farming-based organizations also need to be established. Equitability in successful AIPs was achieved through law or policy. Successful AIPs are anchored on legally established cooperatives, and therefore women have legal redress if equity in payment of dividends is not upheld. Weak AIPs are concerned about registration taxation, and an important policy suggestion is tax exemption for the initial three years of “infancy” or until 30% profitability is achieved. In addition, successful AIPs had a business ethic/principle that strictly embraced the privacy of members’ accounts. It was expressed during interviews that only accountants knew what shares were paid to members. Skills to manage businesses were mainly gained through trainings, which the management committees of the AIPs under study saw as critical to the AIP’s success. One of the most important

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

15

leadership qualities of the AIPs was integrity: honoring the contributions of each male and female member, and upholding agreements. Furthermore, members had several options for resolving conflicts, should these arise. These included AIP internal reconciliation or (member-to-member) compensation; local government arbitration or enforcement, depending on the level of conflict; and the courts of law, because AIPs are registered with the government registrar. Although cultural norms often segregate roles by gender, especially in some patriarchal societies in SSA, this was not the case for AIPs in Rwanda, since the operating culture of the AIP demanded that people had to work for what they earned, regardless of their gender. An AIP member “could not reap where they did not sow.” This simple cultural philosophy that “you eat after you work” seems obvious, yet when applied, blocks entitlements to any AIP member above their contribution. This principle seems to contravene household arrangements, which appear to relegate women to an inferior position. It illustrates the fact that the sociocultural context influences the way people behave. Cultural norms dictate a code of behavior for domestic situations, while a different set of rules apply for behavior in public forums and formal organizations. In this intricate status quo, a male household head can therefore be led in the AIP by his “subordinate” child or wife. Here, women are seen as good treasurers, who are able to account for funds, and able to resist misappropriating collective savings because of family concerns. Another important finding is that the two AIPs would not have been able to distribute the benefits derived from its members’ activities equally and without regard to the gender of the member, without well-implemented government policy on gender. Indeed, Rwandan policy stipulates clearly that men and women are entitled to equal pay or compensation for similar work. AIPs are therefore established on the principle of equal opportunity and the corresponding equitable benefits. Rwanda has made tremendous achievements in the area of gender equality and women’s empowerment, which constitute best practices (as noted in the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion in Rwanda, 2010). For instance, to reduce poverty, the Government has instituted the following measures: the Government of Rwanda has made a strong commitment to integrate gender into policy and strategic planning instruments; in Vision 2020, the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS), gender is highlighted as an across-the-board issue in all sectors; and a gender-responsive budgeting project was initiated by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, in partnership with the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, to ensure that budget allocations to government interventions were gender-sensitive. However, similar laws exist in other countries, such as Kenya and Uganda, where benefit-sharing implementation does not necessarily occur equitably as observed in Rwanda. Three factors set Rwanda apart: (a) The active role of national institutions: the involvement of RAB, MINAGRI, and local government in strategic projects right from initiation. The scaling and sustainability of benefits are integrated with all phases. (b) Human capacity: the technical skills of RAB officials were critically important. RAB officials were empowered and supported by skills acquired through Forum FARA, DfID, ASARECA, CIAT, and CIMMYT. RAB officials spread their policy knowledge

16

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

widely to AIP actors, making them aware of gender policy and able to implement it within their own AIP. Moreover, public institutions ensure that policy is adhered to. (c) Widespread policy awareness, monitoring, and evaluation: Rwanda has clear procedures to ensure that government structures communicate public policy through low- and high-level functions. Moreover, the Government has set minimum conditions for registering AIP/cooperatives. There are also clear and guaranteed individual and collective consequences in cases of non-conformity with public policy. Overall, policy on gender and youth in Rwanda should be focused on mentoring, supported by the national government through a Gender and Youth Strategic Interests Alliance, to ensure that research, policy, and investment institutions engage and work together. This collaboration, together with regular national budgeting, is necessary to guide the institutionalization of AIPs. However, it is important to point out that the set of policies and implementation measures that have been discussed in this article are not a panacea for addressing gender inequalities for rural agricultural households in the agricultural sector; other factors such as social norms and conduct, political economy, and the safety and security of the country also need to be taken into account.

Conclusion The findings from this study demonstrate that women who are participating in the successful AIPs are progressing better than they did before joining. Women reported that they have extra income that they did not have before, and that their households are now more food-secure. Women who are members of successful AIPs gain economic, social, and environmental benefits and learn how to conduct business affairs. Some of the married women members reported that previously they did not see the whole amount of revenue from sales of their agricultural produce, because only their husbands were involved in selling the produce. These married women had to find other means of coping with the lack of benefit from the revenue derived from the sale of their crops by farming on rented or women’s groups’ plots, or by covertly diverting part of the agricultural produce without their husband’s knowledge, among other strategies. Our study shows that the welfare of women can be enhanced through the AIPs. Our findings confirm that the gender-empowerment approach advocated by Kingiri (2013) has great potential to produce a positive effect on the economic welfare of women (through having additional income) by improving household food security and nutrition, among other spill-over benefits. This approach advocates the empowerment of women through partnerships (engendered rural-based intermediary groups, etc.); through women taking an active role in different innovation-related tasks and patterns of interactions (e.g. rural-based organizations and networks); and through institutions (practices, norms), policies (research, development, and extension), and skills gained through learning informed by both tacit and codified knowledge. Further research, however, needs to be done in order to find out how other disadvantaged social groups (e.g. disabled persons) could also benefit from AIPs. The study has implications for policymakers who are concerned with reforming the rural sector, and it advocates holistic and integrative approaches that promote the inclusion of the scientific and non-scientific communities in research. There is a need

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

17

to design and implement policies that facilitate the active participation of village members in making decisions that directly impact their livelihood. Hearing the voice of the village will encourage the government to support the integration of AIP activities in existing government programs, in order to pool resources and minimize transaction costs. Overall, it is important to point out that the success of AIPs does not happen overnight but takes time, and there needs to be an enabling environment if AIPs are to succeed. An AIP cannot exist in a vacuum. A supportive or enabling environment includes: (i) the presence of institutions that provide knowledge, e.g. agricultural research organizations/systems and NGOs that train in agribusiness management and planning; (ii) the presence of institutions that provide finance either in kind or as credit for infrastructure, e.g. land, storage areas for agricultural products, office buildings, machinery for farming or processing, and a place to dry agricultural produce and carry out other necessary activities; and (iii) the strong design and implementation of government policies that work toward rural transformation, gender equality, and the alleviation of poverty. Further research needs to be undertaken, though, in order to understand how social capital contributes to sustainable innovation and how policy may support the same.

Note 1. The SIMLESA project aims to increase food security and incomes at household and regional levels and foster economic development in eastern and southern Africa through improved productivity by more resilient and sustainable maize-based farming systems.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) for funding the research project in Gender and Equitable Benefit Sharing Mechanisms through Agricultural Innovation Platforms project in Rwanda. Specifically, authors would like to thank Dr. John Dixon, Principal Advisor/Research Program Manager, Cropping Systems and Economics (CSE) program from ACIAR for all the support and guidance. In addition; authors would like to recognize the logistical support we received from the Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), especially Carol Mukundi of the Nairobi Office and communication specialist, Johnson Siamachira Mapuranga. Above all, our sincere gratitude to farmers and other AIP membership in the Project sites of Rwanda who volunteered information, accommodated us, and participated in the research processes.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding This work was supported by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

18

R. I. ADAM ET AL.

References Adam, R. (2011). Production and seed acquisition: A case study of beans, Kagera Region in Tanzania. Technical paper for the McKnight Foundation. Agarwal, B. (1997). Bargaining and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1–51. Innovation Platform Brief 6; Birachi, E., Rooyen Van, A., Some, H., Mante, F., Cadilhon, J., Adekumie, A., & Swaans, K. (2013). Innovation platforms for agricultural value chain development. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Clason, L.D., & Dormody, J.T. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doss, C. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12), 2075–2092. Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder diary development programme. Agricultural Systems, 118, 65–77. Kingiri, A.N. (2013). A review of innovation systems framework as a tool for gendering agricultural innovations: Exploring gender learning and system empowerment. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(5), 521–541. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55. Mapila, M.A.T.J., & Makina, A. (2011). Engendering rural livelihoods in Malawi through agricultural innovation systems. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(5), 184–200. Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion. (2010). National gender policy. Kigali, Rwanda: Republic of Rwanda. Government of Rwanda. Misiko, M. (2016). Participatory audit tool for assessing benefits of innovation platforms. CIMMYT Working Paper. Texcoco, Mexico. Nachmias-Frankfort, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences (7thed.). New York: Worth. Sarapura, S. (2011). Gender analysis in agricultural innovation systems: The case of Papa Andina, Peru. In The agricultural innovation systems sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank. Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Rodenburg, J., Kayeke, J., Hinnou, C.L., Raboanarielina, M.C., . . . Bastiaans, L. (2015). RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part 1). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovations capacity. Agricultural Systems, 132 (2015), 1–11.