POULTRYDEVELOPMENT-L Archives

Forum on family poultry production in developing countries

PoultryDevelopment-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Sujit Nayak <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Forum on family poultry production in developing countries <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:10:54 +0530
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 kB) , text/html (21 kB)

>   Dear Coordinators and friends,
>  
> I would like to share some experiences/ views on the topic 'Women empowerment through sustainable family poultry development':
>  
> 
> ·         Can development of family poultry make an important contribution to women’s empowerment?
>  
> I recently came across two sayings in Telegu (one of the many languages spoken in India) which I would like to share:
>  
> >  
> > a)   What the chicken eats or what a daughter-in-law eats should never be counted because they only multiply wealth in your home, which remains with you.
> >  
> > b)   Only the daughter-in-law knows the amount earned from the poultry in the house
> > 
>  
> This itself illustrates that FP in India is so closely associated with women.
>  
>  
>  
> ·         What are the requirements and constraints for contribution of family poultry to women empowerment?
>  
>  
>  
> Major requirement would be to allow total physical and financial control of birds with the women. Physical would mean not only taking care themselves but also delegating duties to other members when needed. Financial would require that she keeps account and the decision as to how the birds/ their produce would be used.
>  
>  
>  
> Major constraint is to create an enabling environment where other members of the house support them, and where they can be imparted training close to their home as they have to do multi tasks and cannot afford to stay away for long. A demo with few women would help in the snowballing effect.
>  
>  
>  
> ·         Can family poultry development have negative impacts for women, for example by increasing their workload? 
>  
> This is a very important issue often not paid due attention. I have not come across any instances where workload increase has been a issue but I have heard of a few cases where the money earned through sell of eggs birds in the haat(local market) - by the men of the house mostly- are not handed over to the women. In some cases if the women earn directly, they are hassled to hand over the earnings. This defeats the empowerment concept. 
>  
>  
>  
> ·         Have past projects proved a positive impact of family poultry development on women’s empowerment? 
>  
>       A few of the States/ constituencies in the country like West Bengal have very well organized Self-Help-Groups and some North Eastern State are also proposing programs with women only as beneficiaries .
>  
>  
>  
>     In India, now it is mandatory to go for gender-budgeting of most of the beneficiary-oriented schemes including FP. Even if compulsory budgeting is not done, we are advising implementors to consider atleast 30% women in the program. 
>  
>  
>  
> ·         While promoting family poultry what should be done to avoid discrimination based on gender, caste, and class?
>  
>  
>  
> I think FP is setting an example where it is actually helping in removing class differences. In most part of rural India I had heard that the elite classes (Brahmins etc.) would keep cattle and only the supposedly deprived/ socially backward classes would go for pigs, sheep, goat and poultry. So, in a way the ‘species kept’ created the classes. But slowly the realization that short cycles of the small animals give faster return and often act as ‘cash crops’ especially in times of crises has made them to take up other species also.
>  
> However, while implementing the FP program in India we are also earmarking funds to be spent for coverage of some recognized deprived/ socially backward castes/ tribes like Scheduled Castes (SC-16%) and Scheduled Tribes(ST-8%) as is done for Women(30%). Even though it seems discriminating at times but it is actually meant to rationalize the discriminations made earlier to these groups and allow them to come at par with with better advantaged groups.
>  
>  
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
>  
>  
> Sujit Nayak
>  
> India
>

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the PoultryDevelopment-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/scripts/wa-fao.exe?SUBED1=POULTRYDEVELOPMENT-L


ATOM RSS1 RSS2