Open AccessNutrition‐sensitive agricultural interventions and gender dynamics: A qualitative study in Nepal
Author(s) -
Kjeldsberg Cecilie,
Shrestha Niva,
Patel Miti,
Davis Dale,
Mundy Gary,
Cunningham Kenda
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
maternal and child nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1740-8709
pISSN - 1740-8695
DOI - 10.1111/mcn.12593
Subject(s) - beneficiary , psychological intervention , empowerment , context (archaeology) , medicine , agriculture , focus group , workload , agricultural productivity , malnutrition , economic growth , qualitative research , political science , sociology , nursing , business , economics , marketing , social science , geography , management , archaeology , law
Undernutrition and low women's status persist as major development obstacles in South Asia and specifically, Nepal. Multi‐sectoral approaches, including nutrition‐sensitive agriculture, are potential avenues for further reductions in undernutrition. Although evidence is growing, many questions remain regarding how gender mediates the translation of agricultural production activities into nutritional benefit. In this study, we examined how gender influences the pathway from agricultural production to improved income and control of income, with a focus on five domains of empowerment: decision‐making power, freedom of mobility, social support, workload and time, and self‐efficacy. For this, we conducted a qualitative retrospective assessment ( N = 10 FGDs) among 73 beneficiary women of a nutrition‐sensitive agriculture programme implemented from 2008 to 2012 in two districts of Nepal—Baitadi and Kailali. We found that women reported increased decision‐making power, new knowledge and skills, increased recognition by their family members of their new knowledge and contributions, and self‐efficacy as farmers and sellers, whereas workload and time were the most consistent constraints noted. We also found that each empowerment domain operated differently at different stages of the pathway, sometimes representing barriers and at other times, opportunities and that the interconnectedness of the domains made them difficult to disentangle in practice. Finally, there were major contextual differences for some domains (e.g., freedom of mobility) between the two districts. Future policies and programmes need to include in‐depth formative research to ensure that interventions address context‐specific gender and social norms to maximise programmatic opportunities to achieve desired results.