Examining Pathways Towards Engendered Change: Involving Men and Women in Care Work in West Nile, Uganda

"This case study of a value chain development (VCD) programme in Uganda argues that it is possible to change gender norms and relations that have existed for generations, and that this improves development outcomes significantly - but it takes deliberate effort and planning."

Gender norms influence the unequal division of labour among women and men, in particular related to unpaid care work, decision-making, and production processes. This case study discusses how Oxfam worked with the Poroporo Multipurpose Group in Uganda to integrate gender transformative approaches, which showed positive results not only on gender equality, but also on agricultural outputs.

As part of the project, Oxfam adapted an existing Gender Action Learning System (GALS) to the local context, combining agricultural livelihoods and market development with a gender transformative approach. Unlike conventional approaches to value chain development (VCD), the intervention took a livelihoods perspective and included non-commercial activities throughout. Using participatory methodologies, "unequal division of labour and unrewarded care work became a priority in the 'life journey' of women and men, a process of analysis and action planning with personal visions for change." Such personal visions included: women and men sharing productive, domestic, and care work, to produce enough for both consumption and sale; joint decision-making about household expenditures; and women having secure access to land.

GALS is considered unique in that it combines individual life planning with behaviour change at household level, organisational development, and multi-stakeholder negotiation for engaging private sector and local authorities in supporting women's rights. Gender-based opportunities and constraints for improved livelihoods are analysed, and behaviour change was triggered by voluntary peer-to-peer training by change champions from amongst the community. This was supported through role plays, songs, and radio.

The case study outlines a number of changes resulting from the programme, including that "participants learned that they themselves could change norms." The programme challenged stereotypes and taboos, so that "by the end of the project, gender norms had changed so much that women had not only started to ride bicycles, some had opened a bicycle repair shop." An end-of-project review of 150 participants, comprising 88 women and 62 men, found: 149 said they were now working together, rather than separately, on their land; 87 of the 88 women said their husbands were now helping out with cooking, bathing children, farming, washing of clothes and utensils, etc; and 83 of the 88 women said they now participate in decisions about household spending. One continuing challenge is that only 31 out of the 88 women said they now have joint legal title to their land by their husbands.

Shifting gender norms had a positive impact on livelihoods. An external evaluation found that the Poroporo members were selling their crops for better prices and on better terms. Many of the 88 women mentioned in a survey that the programme had increased their savings. A further field study in early 2015 found that many women had bought grinding machines to reduce time spent on grinding sesame and millet, while 11 of the 20 households surveyed had shifted from cooking on an open fire to a fuel-saving stove. Changes in the division of labour between women and men, including unpaid care work, had a catalytic effect on improving community and value chain development - "although other factors were also important, such as adult literacy training and the positive attitude of local authorities."

The case study also discusses implications for programming, suggesting that addressing gender issues, the unequal division of labour, and unpaid care work strengthens the pro-poor impact of economic interventions such as value chain development, rural finance, and agricultural extension. Programming should thus consider that households are not always cohesive units and there is a need to understand household decision-making dynamics. Ideally, decision-making power should be in the hands of those who do the work. "Production and marketing function better when decision-making is in the hands of those most knowledgeable about the production. When the women do the work and have the knowledge, it is important to target them explicitly." Overall, it is important to view gender as a strategic issue, not as an add-on.

The document concludes that this case study "confirms decades of research stating that developing gender-centred policies will generate social benefits and ensure higher production and productivity in agriculture. Markets and value chains improve when the factors of production are used more effectively and in optimal proportions at household level, paying attention to gender issues. Together with the social justice case for gender equality, this justifies a more strategic gender approach including care issues in VCD programmes."