Revisiting strategies to incorporate gender-responsiveness into maize breeding in southern Africa

Abstract

In sub-Saharan Africa there is increasing focus on identifying women’s trait preferences within crop breeding to enable gender-responsive product development. In the case of maize, breeding programs are ready to incorporate specific traits to increase gender-responsiveness but lack guidance on what these specific traits might be. We propose an inductive approach to determine a pathway towards increasing gender-responsiveness within maize breeding. A survey of 306 farmers was conducted to determine gender differences in maize varieties used together with key agronomic practices. Variety was a significant predictor of the gender of the plot manager and of the household head in contrast to previous surveys conducted in researcher-led on-farm trials. On-farm trials are conducted using pre-defined agronomic management practices and preferences identified at harvest are likely to centre around yield. This study highlighted significant differences in several agronomic practices used by female plot managers and female household heads. Although further studies are required to understand preferences associated with varietal choice, our results suggest that current researcher-led on-farm trials may not identify gender-specific trait preferences driving varietal choice. Furthermore, a trait-specific approach is not the only avenue towards increasing gender-responsiveness in maize breeding in southern Africa. The scope for increasing gender-intentionality in maize breeding could be expanded to incorporate selection environments more relevant to agronomic management practices used by female plot managers and households at advanced stages of the breeding pipeline. This approach could provide an immediate entry point to increase gender-intentional maize breeding in southern Africa.

Gender inclusivity through maize breeding in Africa: A review of the issues and options for future engagement

“…In Kenya, similarly, intensity of use of hybrid seed was lower among female-headed households, which used, on average, 1.8 kg less hybrid seed than male-headed households ( Smale and Olwande, 2014 ). Recent work in Zimbabwe documented differences in variety use among male and female plot managers ( Cairns et al, 2021b ), but clear explanations of these differences are still needed.…”

“…It rarely falls cleanly into either men's camp or women's and tends to be grown widely by both men- and women-headed households (e.g. Cairns et al, 2021b ; Doss, 2002 ). In East Africa, research has shown that responsibilities for its production are often shared between men and women, either in separate or jointly managed plots ( Adam et al, 2020a ; Adam et al, 2020b ).…”

“…This may be particularly true for women, whose stated preferences in on-farm evaluations or choice experiments do not indicate a need or an ability to purchase preferred seeds given complex factors in and barriers to real-world adoption ( Doss and Morris, 2001 ). An illustrative recent study of maize farmers in Zimbabwe ( Cairns et al, 2021b ) showed significant gender-based differences in varieties grown, but trait preferences identified in participatory varietal evaluations did not correlate with variety use; women liked the popular commercial maize hybrid Pan53 in researcher-managed on-farm trials, yet few women plot managers seemingly purchased this variety. The immediate reasons for this discrepancy are unclear, but it highlights the danger in relying heavily on preference studies to understand seed demand.…”

“Whose demand?” The co-construction of markets, demand and gender in development-oriented crop breeding

“…However, questions have been raised about the extent to which participatory approaches adequately reflect the wider conditions under which different social groups perform agricultural labour, their preferences beyond the (often production-related) traits already selected by the breeders, and their real-life decision-making and adoption behaviours, as well as the extent to which social and gender researchers are able to influence varietal design (e.g. Cernea and Kassam 2005;Ashby et al 2013;Almekinders et al 2019;Weltzien et al 2019;Cairns et al 2021;Voss et al 2021).…”

“…Moreover, trait and varietal preferences may not fully predict adoption and buying behaviour (e.g. Cairns et al 2021) nor do they necessarily represent meaningful choices and may in several cases reflect "a self-subordinating adaptation to a restricted choice, to accommodate (…) inferior access to labor, capital, farm equipment, seed, fertilizers, pest control products and market access" (Polar et al 2021).…”