decision makers

Hungry for change

Standard

Two weeks ago Oxfam published an index about food. Specifically the data ranks countries in terms of the ability to get enough to eat. It covers having enough, affordability, food quality and diabetes and obesity. The data can be reached via this link: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/good-enough-to-eat

Gambia comes out badly. In the chart it is four sectors away from the bottom, with the affordability of food being the most challenging indicator. This is not surprising.  Gambia, particularly the rural areas rely on subsistence farming. Over sixty per cent of the population is below the overall poverty line, and forty per cent are below the food poverty line. The World Bank says that  “if income security were defined to mean a safety margin of more than 25 per cent above the poverty line, less than a quarter of the population could be classified as being in a non-precarious position.”[1]  There has been a hungry season in Gambia for many years, as food supplies are strictly rationed for the last two months of before the harvest and, in good years, that will see a family though. In bad years such as 2012 when the groundnut harvest failed and other crops had very low yields, this rationing is pushed to extremes with meals skipped and what is left being very small.

Here, women usually take responsibility for horticulture in gardens growing vegetables such as tomatoes, aubergine, cabbage, onions, potatoes and lettuce. They are also often responsible for growing rice and other grains. They are over fifty per cent of The Gambia’s agricultural labour force.  And last week I was able to learn about how they are trying to cope not only with hunger but also increase their economic and influencing power.

Mariama and Hajateneng told me about their women’s cooperatives; groups which work together to run project work, farm and tend communal garden. They told me that these gardens enhance their diets but also give them an income which means that their children can go to school. Without the efforts of the women, education for their children would not happen. Hajateneng showed me her group’s bank book, a vital savings plan in a community which would otherwise lack access to banking services and which makes sure they can sustain their gardens. Mariama told me about some training she’d attended in Dakar at which she bought seeds and transformed the way her village planted so that there is now food throughout the year, not just six months. It is such small actions that form development and show not only why it takes time but also why it is worth it.

These two women have a vision. They want all the women of their region, the most remote and often ignored region of the country, to form a federation of cooperatives. This will mean they can raise more funds, support projects with larger amounts and increase the food supply in their region. They hold themselves accountable and promote transparency, honesty and cooperation. They also said “we have learned about human rights and advocacy. So we know we need a bigger voice. When we are a federation the government and civil society will have to listen to us”.  With support and information these women and those who follow them can and will end hunger in the region. They don’t need leaders, in a very male dominated society they are leading themselves. They are inspirational.

Also Hajateneng said they need a taller fence on the orchard to stop the animals getting in. If anyone can help please let me know and I’ll pass on your details.

IMG_2664

Why’s it all about the women?

Standard

Prompted by the anniversary of her birthday I have been reading around Simone de Beauvoir. She once said, “to emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue nonetheless to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other.” Let women be people first, have a say and influence over her life and the running of society and the world will get better, without damaging what we like about having two different sexes, i.e. the passion and romance and fun of it all.

It’s a call that every development agency I come into contact with has a thing about “engaging women”. Why? It is because development is faster and more effective when women are involved. This is not because women are nicer or better people, the old “girls are better than boys” playground taunt is simply not true.  However, what is true is that the more gender divided a society is, the more important it is to have women in decision making roles, involved in projects and in spending at every level.

It took heavy campaigning to ensure that family allowance in the UK was paid to women (or the main carer). This was for the children not for the women, the main carer, usually a woman, understands the needs of the children more and better and is significantly more likely to prioritise them. The principle applies in all community and national development. Women perform different roles in their communities than men so they have a different understanding of their society and therefore different priorities when it comes to spending.  It’s not that women are better decision makers, it’s just that often they have more of the information that prioritises more development orientated decisions available to them through their own experience.  As Beauvoir has it, “Self-knowledge is no guarantee of happiness, but it is on the side of happiness and can supply the courage to fight for it.”

According to the UN [http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/fast-facts/english/FF-Gender-Equality-and-UNDP.pdf] around two thirds of the world’s people who live in poverty are women, women do two thirds of the world’s work, produce 50% of the world’s food but only earn 10% of the world’s income and 1% of the property. Leaving aside the labour rights issues (“fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”), this means that the people who understand the intricacies of life in poverty are often women.

Often, women know poverty and they know their communities, who can be trusted to care well for children, which streets are safe, which need some sort of intervention.  In my own life I have watched as people lament the “attitudes of youth” to which they occasionally add “women” because the two fall under a linked funding priority. But when I walk in the street it is the women I see finding work, mainly women turning over patches of scrub to feed families, older women with coarse hands roasting peanuts by the roadside, generally young girls selling mint or water while the boys beg for footballs. There is no attitude problem; the women here take up the responsibility for producing food, caring for children, making homes without question and with determination.  At a 30 hectare farm I visited the most productive area is the “women’s garden” where twenty women produce more than the whole farm from one hectare. The men complain that they have the most fertile ground, but I suspect industrious work rather than favourable land allocation.  At another site a man stood with his cash crop of weedy cassava in his farm, worrying about his income, while the “garden” produced food for the whole village as well as a small shared income.

So women aren’t kinder or nicer people by some quirk of chromosomes, but the cultural role given to many women often means that they have to think and work harder for changes perhaps only they have noticed, and they see more of the impact. This is why development agencies are calling for women to be more involved and influential in decision making at every level.  But, there’s also an underlying principle, summed up by Beauvoir as “Each of us is responsible for everything and to every human being.” The women I see here take that responsibility seriously, and the structures we build as a society should allow that responsibility to be taken up to the fullest by everyone.