New seeds, gender norms and labor dynamics in Hoima District, Uganda

Abstract

NERICA, a new group of high-yielding and stress-tolerant upland rice varieties developed by the Africa Rice Center, is changing production strategies of many Ugandan households. This article contributes a better understanding of processes leading to NERICA-related household outcomes in Hoima District, Uganda, by examining patterns of intrahousehold production relations and their consequences for household members’ individual wellbeing. Research presented here provides a timely illustration of the impact that the introduction of NERICA in Hoima District has had on gendered labor dynamics in grower households. Drawing on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, the analysis is grounded in the local context and the embodied and gendered subjectivities of smallholder women, men and children. Findings reveal that, while households that have adopted NERICA have become better off in economic terms, the extreme labor burden that NERICA demands in bird scaring and weeding affects women and children's wellbeing negatively by exacerbating their time poverty and energy expense. The article makes a case for more comprehensive assessments of agricultural intensification processes that involve diffusion of new production technology, arguing that such assessments should also contain an analysis of gendered labor dynamics within households.

Keywords:

• NERICA
• gender
• smallholders
• labor intensity
• Uganda

Notes

1. Africa Rice Center (WARDA), FAO, and SAA, NERICA.

2. Africa Rice Center (WARDA), FAO, and SAA, NERICA.

3. Harsch, “Farmers Embrace African ‘Miracle’ Rice,” 10; Kijima, Sserunkuuma, and Otsuka, “How Revolutionary is the ‘NERICA Revolution’?,” 252–67; Mohapatra, “Putting Rice on the African Agenda,” 16–17.

4. Afedraru, “Uganda Receives $6m.”

5. JICA/AGRA, “Coalition for African Rice Development”; Maseruka and Kalyango, “Uganda Tops Upland Rice Growing”; Mohapatra, “Uganda's Rice Revolution,” 22–3.

6. Afedraru, “Uganda Receives $6m.”

7. Bergman Lodin, Jirström, and Paulson, “The New Rice for Africa”; Bergman Lodin, “Intrahousehold Bargaining Processes”; Kijima, Otsuka, and Sserunkuuma, “Assessing the Impact of NERICA.”

8. Africa Rice Center, Africa Rice Center (WARDA) Annual Report; Agboh-Noameshie, Kinkingninhoun-Medagbe, and Diagne, “Gendered Impact of NERICA Adoption,” 189–91; Diagne, “The Diffusion and Adoption of NERICA,” 208–31; Diagne, Midingoyi, and Kinkingninhoun, “The Impact of NERICA Adoption.”

9. Doss, “Designing Agricultural Technology,” 2075–92; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli, “Promising Approaches,” 581–92; Paris, “Technology and Policy Needs,” 187–218.

10. It is well documented that when women's labor burdens increase, this often adversely affects children, and most especially girls. Evers and Walters, “The Model of a Gender-Segregated Low-Income Economy,” 76–88; Kabeer, Reversed Realities; Fonjong and Athanasia, “The Fortunes and Misfortunes,” 133–47.

11. Jackson and Palmer-Jones, “Rethinking Gendered Poverty,” 557–83.

12. Carney and Watts, “Disciplining Women?,” 651–81; Doss, “Designing Agricultural Technology,” 2075–92.

13. Carney and Watts, “Disciplining Women?,” 651–81; Dey, “Women in African Rice Farming Systems,” 419–44; Moser and Barrett, “The Disappointing Adoption Dynamics,” 1085–100; Paris and Chi, “The Impact of Row Seeder Technology,” 157–84; Fonjong and Athanasia, “The Fortunes and Misfortunes,” 133–47; Jones, The Impact of the SEMRY I.

14. Kasente et al., Gender and the Expansion of Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

15. Whitehead, “Rural Women and Food Production,” 425–73.

16. Kasente et al., Gender and the Expansion of Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

17. Moser, “Gender Planning,” 1799–825; Kabeer, Reversed Realities.

18. Kasente et al., Gender and the Expansion of Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

19. Doss, “Designing Agricultural Technology,” 2075–92.

20. The division of labor in a community is not only governed by gender, but by various social factors including class, ethnicity and age. These influence and modify a gendered subject's bargaining power, and in turn what women and men actually can do and end up doing.

21. Whitehead, “Rural Women and Food Production,” 432.

22. Ahikire, “Gender and Poverty”; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

23. Ahikire, “Gender and Poverty”; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

24. Whitehead, “Rural Women and Food Production,” 432

25. Ahikire, “Gender and Poverty”; MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

26. Kasente et al., Gender and the Expansion of Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports; IFAD, “Uganda”; African Development Fund, Uganda.

27. Paulson, “Gendered Practices,” 174–95.

28. Sen, “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts,” 123–49; Kabeer, Reversed Realities; Whitehead, “Rural Women and Food Production,” 425–73; Agarwal, “‘Bargaining’ and Gender Relations,” 1–51; Jackson, “Women and Poverty,” 67–82.

29. Agarwal, “Women and Technological Change,” 67–114; Dey Abbas, “Gender Asymmetries,” 249–62; Paris, “Technology and Policy Needs,” 187–218.

30. Ahikire, “Gender and Poverty”; Kabeer, Reversed Realities; Whitehead, “Rural Women and Food Production,” 425–73.

31. UBOS, Uganda National Household Survey.

32. MoFPED, Gender Inequality.

33. Jackson and Palmer-Jones, “Rethinking Gendered Poverty,” 557–83.

34. In relation to the conceptualization of burden, Palmer-Jones and Jackson (“Work Intensity,” 42) stress that besides the actual energy the activity demands, its repetitiveness, the posture and pace it requires, whether it is carried out simultaneously with other activities (multi-tasking) and how intervals of activity and rest are sequenced are important dimensions.

35. Jackson and Palmer-Jones, “Rethinking Gendered Poverty,” 562. Emphasis added.

36. Jackson and Palmer-Jones, “Rethinking Gendered Poverty,” 562. Emphasis added. Emphasis in the original.

37. Bergman Lodin, “The NERICA Conundrum.”

38. In relation to each quote we specify the village where the focus group discussion or art workshop took place.

39. For a comprehensive review on the production and market performance of the crop, see Bergman Lodin, Jirström, and Paulson, “The New Rice for Africa.”

40. Tobacco is mainly produced under male control.

41. As suggested in section 2, there is less divisional rigidity in planting and harvesting. Yet, women generally remain responsible for more cropping activities than men; something reflected in both the table and the following quote by a man in Nyamarobyo: “The woman is more in the garden than you.”

42. de Mey, Demont, and Diagne, “Estimating Bird Damage,” 175–200; Edyegu, “Weaver Dirds”; Elliott, “Quelea Management,” 51–8.

43. This is likely the dual outcome of rice having a greater problem with vertebrate pests per se and a higher market value; something we return to below.

44. Muzaale, “Kayunga Pupils.”

45. According to our diary data, NERICA claims 519 hours/ha/season, while beans claim 274 (Kijima, Otsuka, and Sserunkuuma, “Assessing the Impact of NERICA”), maize 209 (ibid.), and groundnuts 158 (Obuo et al., “Weed Management,” 161–6). Perennial crops bananas and coffee claim 288 and 185 hours/ha/year (Bagamba et al., “Performance and Profitability,” 729–39). NB according to our survey, tobacco is an exception, demanding 620 hours/ha/season.

46. NaCRRI, Upland Rice Cultivation Guide; also see Africa Rice Center (WARDA), FAO, and SAA, NERICA.

47. Worth noting is that over three-quarters of the farmers plant in lines and that this saves weeding labor compared to broadcasting the seeds.

48. Dzomeku, Dogbe, and Agawu, “Responses of NERICA,” 262–9.

49. Seck and Diagne, “La Crise, une Opportunité,” 13–15.

50. The learning curve from adopting a new technology suggests there are substantial productivity gains to be reaped from experience.

51. We argue that they are due to the way NERICA has played out in this specific social context and not due to any inherent flaws in NERICA per se. Agarwal has made similar observations in relation to other technologies’ context-specific impacts; see Agarwal, “Women and Technological Change,” 112.