Gender–smart, Climate–smart: An Analysis of double mainstreaming benefits to housing

'Elder woman walking in front of a dessert village' by Float (Source: Adobe Stock)

Blog Written by Hannah Jayne Robinson (Reall), Juanita Elias (University of Warwick) and Research assistance was provided by Mehru Shahid (University of Warwick)

“The transfer of academic knowledge into commercial and third sector contexts lies at the heart of the work of Innovate UK – the UK’s innovation agency. In this blog we discuss a project funded by Innovate UK that sought to further embed gender knowledge within a development organisation – the affordable housing charity Reall and discuss one of the key outputs of the project – a thought piece on the concept of the double mainstreaming of gender and climate in development work.”

Between April and July 2024, the University of Warwick and Reall worked together on an Innovate UK Accelerated Knowledge Transfer (AKT). During the AKT, a Warwick associate – Natalie Rothwell - was placed within Reall to help further their commitments to gender equality and better position them within an ever more competitive market for gender -oriented development funding. Reall are an innovator and investor in climate-smart affordable homes in urban Africa and Asia, and have improved the lives of 3,000,000 people, created over 200,000 jobs, brought clean water to 500,000 people, and sustainable sanitation to over 1,000,000 people. Their vision is to deliver housing markets that work for people, prosperity and the planet, to drive sustainable urbanisation.

The AKT brought together experts on gender and housing to understand how gender affects access to, and usage of housing. The first two knowledge outputs were a blog on the need for women’s inclusion within Reall’s core mission of providing green affordable housing, and a toolkit that explored potential pathways for including gender in policies and programming. The final knowledge output,discussed in more detail below, was a thought piece that explored the need to not only include gender in affordable housing design and delivery, but also highlighted the intersections between gender and climate change. That is, how affordable housing needs to be climate-smart and gender sensitive and the mutually reinforcing nature of these twin commitments.

The authors of the thought piece consider this dynamic in relation to the concept of the ‘double mainstreaming’ - the simultaneous integration of climate and gender into policies and programs. The article investigates how both gender and climate impact affordable housing, analysing the resulting health, economic, and social impacts that gender and climate have on an individual’s access to, and usage of, affordable housing. It highlights the heightened health risks faced by those who rely on polluted water sources or cook with traditional stoves that emit toxic fumes, tasks often undertaken by women. The economic impacts discussed include unequal access to credit, ownership rights, and prioritisation of energy efficiency. Social impacts are explored in relation to the need for supportive and inclusive neighbourhoods that increase social wellbeing.

Furthermore, the article seeks to bring this more conceptual discussion to life by highlighted existing examples within Reall’s work that demonstrate historical links to double mainstreaming. These projects explored commitments to the curation and fostering of community in Pakistan, ensuring economic stability in Mozambique, and prioritisation of women’s voices in Kenya. These examples were highlighted to display initial connections to the cross-cutting themes of gender and climate, and create case studies of best practise.

Reall and Warwick are currently seeking opportunities to further the development of this work, and further explore how gender and climate affect how housing markets work for people, prosperity and the planet. To read more about how Reall have developed their thinking around the concept of double mainstreaming – see recently published article “Gender-smart, Climate-smart: The ‘double mainstreaming’ of gender and climate within affordable housing in low-income contexts” available on the Reall website here.

Authors Bio

Hannah Jayne Robinson is Monitoring, Research and Evidence Co-ordinator at Reall. Juanita Elias is Professor in International Political Economy at the University of Warwick. Research assistance was provided by Mehru Shahid, a graduate of Politics and Sociology at the University of Warwick.

Mouzayian Khalil : 30 Sep 2024 21:41 |  Tags: Affordable Housing Climate Gender Housing Policy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Colonization and the Farm Bills in India

Farmers from the state of Punjab and Haryana marching towards Delhi in demand for MSP provisions. (February 2023, Photo credit: Reuters)

Colonialization and the Farm Bills in India

Written by: Keerti Narayanan

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, thousands of farmers from the states of Punjab and Haryana marched towards the capital city of India – Delhi – in hopes that the government would recall its proposed farms bills. The proposed farm bills aimed at integrating the previously regulated wholesale mandis (agricultural markets) with the larger unregulated markets that are characterized by intense corporate involvement. Unsurprisingly, the facet of this deregulation which seemed to ruffle the most feathers was the indirect dismantling of the ‘Minimum Support Price’ (MSP). MSP refers to the price the government pays farmers to acquire certain agricultural products when the market prices are lower than the average cost of production. For years, this price served as a standard price floor. The withdrawal of it would transform the market into a completely liberal one – forcing all farmers to compete with market prices.

Due to heavy public resistance, the government withdrew the proposed bill a year after it was set forth. Yet, the farmers’ protests did not cease. In 2024, prior to the national election, the country witnessed a recurrence of the farmers’ protests. This time around, the protests did not address a particular act or bill but sought to hold the prime minister and cabinet ministers accountable for the promise of MSP provisions for a wider range of crops.

What is interesting to observe is the demographics of the farmers who were protesting during the 2020 and 2024 protests. The protests drew out mainly affluent farmers from the states of Punjab and Haryana. This brings to light two important questions. First and foremost, why were the majority of farmers protesting coming from these two states? Secondly, why did poor farmers not constitute a major part of the protesting class? The answers to these two questions, are in fact, inter-related and date back to the colonial period.

The general perception among politicians and academics alike is that colonial rule over north-western India was generally less exploitative than that in the southern and eastern parts of the country. For instance, the Zamindari system (a feudal system of rent collection devised by the colonial empire in India) was not as stringently followed in the states of Punjab and Haryana. This is not to say that colonial rule did not inhibit development in this region. It did, however, not completely break down the region’s social capital – an aspect of society that is often ignored when analyzing the unique case of Punjab. Some scholars argue this is evident in the strong ties held between people from this region and their adherence to traditional beliefs, values, and traditions.

Within the agricultural scene, the social capital within the states of Punjab and Haryana are manifested in the form of close ties between the commission agent (arhtia) and client farmers. These commission agents belong to the mercantile class and have had long-standing relationships with farmers. They are responsible for procuring produce, selling them to the government, and advancing the returns from sale to the farmers. What is unique about the relationship between the commission agents and farmers in the case of Punjab and Haryana is that they are closely intertwined in the local government. Further, they also act as lenders of last resort to farmers at times of uncertainty. These loans often take on a more flexible repayment schedule – given the close ties within the community. Sturdy community associations in the region shield farmers from the exploitation of middlemen and loan sharks that is frequently observed in other parts of the country.

The relatively strong social ties between commission agents and farmers in Punjab and Haryana materialized themselves in the form of increased agricultural productivity during the Green Revolution. Between the years 1950 and 1984, the government of India was set on increasing the nation’s food production. Emphasis was placed on the use of High Yielding Variety (HYV) seeds to increase productivity. Farmers were encouraged to grow paddy and wheat (the key staple crops of the country) so as to improve food security in the nation. Surprisingly, during the time, Punjab and Haryana showed to be the most successful in increasing crop yield. These two states witnessed tremendous growth in productivity. Farmers who had the initial land, capital to invest in HYV seeds, and social ties with the arhtia class were able to generate great affluence from wheat and paddy production while the remaining farmers were forced to grow non-perishable goods (such as potatoes and tomatoes) – mainly for self-consumption. Now, since the arhtias generally belonged to opulent classes, they had closer ties to other affluent classes i.e., landowners. Therefore, the services of arhtias were more easily accessible to landowners than peasant farmers – thereby, widening the already existing economic and social gap between the two groups that initially arose from the Zamindari system. This is especially concerning given that a large proportion of the population are landless laborers. Meanwhile, the small segment of affluent producers in the state are known to be the richest in the country.

After the Green Revolution, to shield poor farmers from the adversity associated with farming, the government set up the MSP mechanism. While this scheme is intended to act as a safety net for poor farmers, it has an inherent flaw. The MSP mechanism favors only those with large amounts of surplus while pushing the poor who produce for self-consumption to the sidelines. Not to mention, the government only sets a price floor (MSP) for some crops – most of which are non-perishable. What this does is commodify the market for non-perishable agricultural products such as wheat, paddy, and oilseed while the production and sale of perishable products continue to display characteristics of a subsistence economy.

Today, the Indian agricultural scene is characterized by the simultaneous existence of two groups. The first group consists of affluent farmers who own large areas of land and grow non-perishable goods for sale either to corporate agri-businesses or the government (through the MSP scheme). A disproportionate share of this group resides in the states of Punjab and Haryana. The second group is comprised of poor farmers who own little to no land. They cannot afford the necessities – such as water and fertilizers – to grow crops such as paddy. They are forced to grow perishable products – most of which are consumed by their own household. The remaining small amounts of surplus are often bought by middlemen at extremely low prices. While this withdraws the burden of storage from the farmers, it pushes them towards an endless cycle of subordination to middlemen – thereby, robbing them of their capability to escape poverty.

All this leads us to question whether the proposed farm bills and the withdrawal of MSP are actually just. Are the farmers’ protests simply a fight by the wealthy to retain the privileges that were meant to serve the less affluent farmers? Would government funds spent on the MSP scheme be more efficient elsewhere? While the answers to these questions might not be as clear cut as academics would hope, a relevant approach to ensure overall development in a socio-culturally complex post-colonial state like India is to revisit and, in some cases, rebuild the social infrastructure that existed prior to colonialisation, before imposing market-commodification and liberal policies.

Author Bio

Keerti Narayanan is a Masters student of International Development at the University of Warwick. She is primarily interested in researching the impact of global financial trends on ground-level relationships within the Indian subcontinent. Her current research focuses on the role of the International Finance Corporation in providing affordable housing to individuals in the developing world.

Mouzayian Khalil : 03 Jul 2024 18:02 |  Tags: Agricultural Policy Farm Bill India Protests |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Stakeholder Identification and Community Engagement for Data Collection in Marginalised Populations

Ebonyi community engagement during December 2020 data collection on community-based intervention in the control of gender-based violence in Nigeria study (Source: Author)

Written by Aboluwaji Daniel Ayinmoro

Stakeholder identification and community involvement in research are increasingly considered as prerequisites for successful data collection procedures within the global discourse of community engagement. However, there is concern about the low participation of several marginalised populations in data gathering processes because of mistrust, resistance and dissatisfaction brought on by their limited access to opportunities and resources, which are necessary for them to fully participate in society and live a decent live. If this issue is not resolved, it could lead to inaccurate collection of data and insufficient evidence-based policy interventions for marginalised communities.

The situations of marginalised populations and poor participation in data collection

The number of marginalised groups in Nigeria is steadily rising as a result of poverty, conflicts, and natural disasters. The most vulnerable categories of people to the detrimental effects of this situations are those who live in slums, internally displaced people (IDPs), women and people living in rural riverine areas. This is because, among other things, they are the population most at risk of violence and having restricted access to resources like the health care system and portable water. Their level of poverty and social exclusion are made worse by these circumstances. Why poor participation in data collection? There are several reasons for poor participation in most evidence-based policy driven intervention programmes. First, a lack of feedback on the results of earlier data collection efforts has left community members excessively bored with data gathering process. Second, in certain marginalised groups, local authorities always hijack interventions. As a result, each researcher coming for data gathering must be screened by the local authorities before any data collection can begin.

Overcoming the challenges of poor participation in data collection process

There are measures that need to be made to address these difficulties in obtaining reliable data in marginalised areas, based on first-hand experiences in slum and community-based interventions research. The first step in data gathering procedures is to identify the stakeholders. This is necessary for sorting out all parties involved, direct or indirect, based on how the research's findings would impact them. Most studies that span marginalised populations often identify three categories of stakeholders: primary, secondary and key stakeholders.

- Primary stakeholders: They are the community people who stand to be directly affected either positively or negatively by the research efforts. The primary stakeholders in research conducted in most marginalised communities are the community members themselves, including their heads and leaders of community sub-groups (gate keepers and community champions), as they stand to gain from the findings.

- Secondary stakeholders: They are the people who stand to be indirectly affected either positively or negatively by any research effort. The involvement of experts in the study of interest, such as health professionals for health interventions in communities is a good example of secondary stakeholder, while the involvement of community police officers in the study of community-based intervention in the control of gender-based violence is another example of secondary stakeholder.

- Key stakeholders: The key stakeholders are people who belong to either or neither of the first two groups, who can have a positive or negative influence on a research effort. The involvement of the state’s ethics office and the directors in the ministry responsible for the area of research interest are good examples of key stakeholders. Additionally, the funder of a research project can also be regarded as a key stakeholder since their funding will impact significantly on the outcome of the research effort.

Stakeholder mapping or analysis is necessary after the different categories of stakeholders have been identified. This is where the researcher[s] ascertains which stakeholders can have the greatest positive or negative impact on the research project.

Engaging community stakeholders for robust data collection

Researchers are required to take certain actions depending on the responsibilities that various types of stakeholders play in a research project in order to address the issues of mistrust, resistance, and suspicion of researchers by marginalised community members. First, as a key stakeholder in marginalised communities, it is crucial to receive ethical clearance from the state's ethics office. This is where permission to execute the research is granted by the state authorities. Secondly, the inclusion of secondary stakeholders in research pertaining to marginalised populations is recommended, subject to the nature of the study and its relationship to policy interventions. This is because, in addition to validating the data gathering tool, their contributions as professionals on the subject of investigation would act as gatekeepers for the marginalised groups. For example, it is imperative that health professionals be involved in the state of health in slums based on their knowledge of related issues.

While the engagement of the secondary and key stakeholders in data collection procedures in marginalised populations is essential for a successful data collection, the procedures for the engagement of primary stakeholders are more critical. This is because the primary stakeholders do not only remain the direct beneficiaries of the research outcomes but are typically more vulnerable to social exclusion than other categories of stakeholders. However, following the engagement of the key and secondary stakeholders in a research effort or an intervention project, a proper community entry is expected to be done by first informing, consulting and brainstorming with community heads and other leaders of community associations on the focus of the research project. By doing this, it would have yielded high level of adherence to ethical standards and perhaps lowest level of resistance in data collection. Involving the heads of the communities and other sub-group leaders in outreach to the community is the next action that has to be taken. In order to gather data in their communities, it could be feasible to recruit and train them as research assistants. As a result, community people feel more involved in the research project and have more confidence in it. Following data collection, feedback and dissemination workshops are required, with participation from representatives of all stakeholders, including the media. Finally, should the study require supports or interventions from the funder, non-governmental organisations or the government to the community, its implementation must not be disregarded and monitored.

Key conclusion

The key to sustainable community engagement in research within any study population for successful data collection in Nigeria, is building enduring relationships with all stakeholders and making sure that research findings are shared with all subjects. In addition to this, if there is any intervention that arises from the findings of the research, its implementation should not be compromised.

Resources

BMJ Global Health: https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/8/e003042.abstract

Global Call to Action Against Poverty: https://gcap.global/coalition/nigeria-2/

Author’s bio

Aboluwaji Daniel Ayinmoro is a Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. He has over five years of experience in teaching and research in Sociology, and Demography and Population Studies. He has expertise in community engagement and mixed-methods research that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. He can be contacted via boluwajidaniel@ymail.com.

Mouzayian Khalil : 14 Mar 2024 15:14 |  Tags: Community Engagement Data Collection Methodology Nigeria Stakeholder Identification |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem