Project performance at the field level can be analysed using the gender rating to indicate the extent to which a business/project has introduced activities specifically to address these inequalities. Similarly, project management can also be rated in terms of their support to gender initiatives.
This information can be used: (i) to identify which domains of gender inequality are more typically addressed at the field level and the gaps; and (ii) to identify the stronger and weaker areas of project management.
If there are several projects in a portfolio, this methodology can also be used for a comparative analysis: (i) between gender-related field level activities (Box 1); (ii) between management activities (Box 2); and (iii) correlations between project management and field-level activities (Box 3).
The findings will provide insights into where to channel further efforts to strengthen performance from a gender perspective.
The use of such a tool can sharpen the focus of agribusiness/value chain projects to have greater clarity about what is being delivered from a gender perspective. It can be used during project design, reviews during implementation, and as a basis for project completion assessment.
It can be further developed by establishing: (i) backward linkages to see which specific inequalities are being addressed and the gaps remaining; (ii) forward linkages between activities, outcomes and impacts; and (iii) the allocation of project funds/investments in different domains and levels of empowerment.
Box 1: Domains of gender inequality addressed at the field level
To facilitate the analysis, activities in each domain are scored from 0 = gender blind, 1 = gender equity, 2 = gender equality, through to 3 = gender transformative. The results may be plotted on an octagon; the larger the area, the more gender transformative the field level activities. In this example, business/project A has addressed gender issues largely from an efficiency perspective. Activities have been introduced to ensure women have access to the key inputs and the basic agronomic skills to produce crops in sufficient volume and of a suitable quality as required by the processor. But little attempt has been made to empower women beyond their basic role as producers. In contrast, business/project B has been more gender transformative and introduced several activities to broaden livelihood opportunities for women to engage in new points along the value chain, to act as role models for others and to redistribute responsibilities for unpaid care and domestic work among household members.
The scores may be aggregated across the eight domains for a project and classified at project level: doing nothing/gender blind (aggregate score range 0 – 2); doing a little/gender equity (score 3 – 10); doing more/gender equality (11 – 16); and doing something different/gender transformative (17 and above). Overall, business/project A (with an aggregate score of 5) would be rated as gender equity whereas business/project B (aggregate score of 15) would be rated as gender equality.
Box 2: Dimensions of project management which support gender-related activities in the field
Continuing with the two examples above, business/project A has taken a few measures in place such as the appointment of a gender focal point (but no training), partners with limited experience of addressing gender issues, and collecting (but not analyzing) sex-disaggregated data (SDD). In contrast, business/project B has a more comprehensive approach at the management level, including a gender strategy, a gender specialist on the management team, trained staff and competent partners, and the collection and analysis of SDD.
Box 3: Correlation between field-level activities and project management
The third level of analysis correlates the aggregate scores at the field level with project management initiatives. For each business/project, the scores are aggregated across the eight domains at the field level and across the five management dimensions. The results are plotted and provides key insights to the reasons why some projects are more active and creative in addressing gender inequalities than others. The weak project management capacity to address gender in business/project A is reflected in poor outcomes at the field level (rated as gender equity). In contrast, the more robust gender-responsive management system in business/project B results in a wider range of gender initiatives at the field level (rated as gender equality). It would appear that the management system will largely drive field-level activities.
Correlation between project management initiatives and gender activities at the field level for projects A and B