Gender,wheat trait preferences,and innovation uptake: Lessons from Ethiopia and India

Abstract

During the post-Green Revolution era, numerous improved wheat varieties were released and disseminated to enhance tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses and increase productivity. Still, in the wheat-based farming systems of the Global South, gender-based and other social inequalities continue to undermine equitable access to improved varieties, especially for women, poor, and marginalized farmers. Here, we present a case for gender-sensitive technology development, dissemination, and evaluation as part of wheat varietal improvement programs. We take stock of the various challenges that persist in the uptake of modern wheat varieties by male and female smallholders. We focus on Ethiopia and India, two geographies with substantive wheat economies, widespread poverty, and gender inequalities. The socio-economic literature on wheat is relatively thin with limited and dated gender-sensitive evaluation studies on varietal technologies in these countries. Varietal technology evaluations could ideally cover gender differences in relation to wheat varietal trait preferences, technology adoption, and associated decision-making and labor-use changes related to new varieties and complementary technologies, as well as nutritional and economic benefits. The paper calls for a need to change the institutional arrangements in wheat research-and-development (R&D) programs to understand and pursue better paths for wheat improvement to proactively contribute toward gender equity and inclusivity.

Keywords

Gendered evaluation social inclusion global south preference heterogeneity inequality plant breeding

Introduction

Wheat is a primary source of food calories and protein for urban and rural consumers (Erenstein et al., 2022), with important implications for human nutrition and health (Poole et al., 2021). In wheat-producing areas in the Global South, wheat is widely cultivated as a staple food crop among millions of marginal, resource-poor, and smallholder farmers (Erenstein et al., 2021). Wheat varietal improvement was a core component of the Green Revolution in South Asia. Combined with improved rice varieties, chemical fertilizers, irrigation, and considerable policy support, the new wheat varieties transformed the Indo-Gangetic Plains into South Asia's granary, benefitting millions of poor farmers and consumers and helping nations move toward self-reliance in food grain production. The Green Revolution delivered a massive and nearly immediate impact in the wheat-growing heartlands of Asia. Gollin et al. (2018) estimated that with a ten percentage points increase in improved variety adoption across the cereal crops, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita increased by about 15%, and this effect had been manifested through crop yield enhancement, factor adjustment, and structural transformation.

A recent review of the impact of the CGIAR's improved varieties (across different target crops) on poverty and welfare outcomes concluded that “improved varieties reduced poverty by 4% (although this finding is not statistically significant), increased income by 35%, and increased expenditure by 14% in adopting households in rural areas” (Garbero and Marion, 2018:p.5). Despite the continuous release and dissemination of new wheat varieties to provide tolerance to stresses and to enhance land productivity, a sizeable wheat area in the Global South is still cultivated with older improved or local varieties (Atlin et al., 2017). Furthermore, the spread of modern varieties has not always been socially inclusive and has tended to benefit men and better-off farmers disproportionately (Krishna et al., 2020). To this day, pronounced gender- and other social inequities caused by age, income, marriage, and caste systems continue to shape wheat-based farming systems (Farnworth et al., 2018; 2021; Jafry, 2016).

With Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations, gender equality and social inclusion became part of the global development agenda, including the pledge to “leave no one behind” (United Nations, 2017). A development process can be inclusive if it enhances the well-being of diverse societal groups by advancing equality of opportunities for everyone. The diverse societal groups include the poorest, vulnerable, and most marginalized and disadvantaged members and sectors that are generally excluded from the conventional perspective of economic growth. Inclusive development would combine a fair distribution and preferable development returns anticipated for all (Dörffel and Schuhmann, 2022). There is a marked consensus that improvement in income equality and the enhancement of human capital are necessary conditions for sustainable development (Bimonte, 2002). This thinking is emphasized by (a) the seminal work of Andy Sumner, “New Bottom Billion,” which suggests that world poverty is not primarily about lack of resources but rather about inequality in accessing them (Sumner, 2010), and (b) Amartya Sen's capability approach to poverty, which goes beyond the average welfare of society, looking at the opportunities available to individuals (Sen, 1981).

So far, the contemporary literature on wheat seed systems and crop improvement initiatives is largely technocentric, and does not consider the social morphology of the end users, leading to an eventual loss of sight of the demand side of the seed system that provides the environments for the adoption of improved varieties (Voss et al., 2022). These lines of argumentation will help frame this paper to examine why wheat genetic gains and related outcomes lag behind in some farming communities and among certain social groups, despite a continuous release of wheat varieties and complementary technologies in developing countries.

In this context, the objective of this paper is to synthesize the gender dimensions in wheat-based systems, trait preferences, and innovation uptake and explore some of the research-and-development (R&D) implications in the Global South. Given the importance of wheat there, the underlying evidence base of social equity dimensions is relatively modest. The paper reviews published and unpublished material, including findings from available secondary sources and building on primary data collected as part of earlier studies on gender and wheat innovations. We take stock of the various challenges that persist in the development of improved wheat varieties and their uptake by poor smallholder farmers and related equitable benefit-sharing among diverse social groups, mainly men and women farmers.

We focus on the cases of Ethiopia and India, two geographies with substantive wheat economies, widespread poverty, and gender inequalities. Furthermore, most of the relatively thin socio-economic research and related publications on wheat are from these two countries. In the subsequent section, we introduce the general context of wheat production and the role of varietal improvement in Ethiopia and India. In the third section, we review gender-differentiation in wheat, with a particular focus on wheat trait preferences and the role of gender norms, resources, and agency for wheat innovation uptake before concluding.

Wheat production and the role of varietal improvement in Ethiopia and India

Food insecurity remains a major challenge for human development, nutrition and health in the Global South (Poole et al., 2021), despite a rise in rural incomes and general affordability of food over recent decades (USAID, 2016) followed by recent setbacks. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (surviving on less than US$1.25 a day in 2005 prices) more than halved during 1990–2011. However, continuing success in reducing extreme poverty has become ever more challenging (World Bank, 2015). The vast majority (96%) of people in extreme poverty live in three regions, South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia and the Pacific (USAID, 2013), where about 70% of the population depends on agriculture for sustaining livelihoods. With the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional 83–132 million people globally were exposed to undernourishment in 2020, and half a billion people fell into poverty. Recent developments have also put upward pressure on the cost of food. Wheat is one of the main staple food crops grown in the Global South, and increased R&D investment in this crop is pertinent to further reduce poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. As wheat is a self-pollinated crop, seeds can be recycled for several years without losing much genetic potential. Seed quality is heavily dependent on the original seed source (Louwaars et al., 2013; Sisay et al., 2017).

Wheat in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has the largest number of wheat farms in Africa (and fifth largest globally): an estimated 5 million in 2020 (Erenstein et al., 2021), primarily smallholders growing rainfed wheat in the cooler uplands. Wheat has shown substantive productivity growth in Ethiopia (Figure 1). Compared to the decade 1994 − 2003, wheat productivity increased by 85% for 2009−2018. Despite this increase, there is still a considerable yield gap (achievable yield under ideal management practices minus actual yield in farmers” fields) for wheat in Ethiopia (Silva et al., 2021). Improved wheat varieties in Ethiopia are delivered through both formal and informal channels. The formal channels are dominated by the public sector (complemented by private seed enterprises and cooperative unions), while the informal farmer-to-farmer seed distribution channels are also important. In many cases, farmers use farm-saved wheat seeds from previous grain production. According to Alemu and Bishaw (2015), during the 2012 cropping season, only 16% of bread wheat seed was obtained from certified seed sources. The rest were either purchased from non-certified sources (32%) or seeds saved from farmers” own harvest (52%).

Figure 1.

Wheat yield growth in India and Ethiopia. Source: FAOSTAT (2021).

Table 1 presents the most popular wheat varieties in Ethiopia (2017/18 season), with respect to the volume of certified seed demand and production. Seed demand is estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture using a hierarchy of institutions starting at the Kebele level. Their development agents document farmers” crop-specific seed demand for improved varieties and send it to the district offices for aggregation and subsequently to the Zonal and Regional Bureaus of Agriculture. In response to the aggregated seed demand, formal seed producers are assigned shares to produce seed. The produced seed is disseminated under a centralized system by the Ministry of Agriculture. For the 2017/2018 production season, the aggregated seed demand figures show that 0.52 million tons of certified seeds of 32 bread wheat and 11 durum wheat varieties were demanded by smallholder farmers in major wheat-producing regional states. However, seed enterprises supplied only 0.35 million tons of certified seeds of 18 bread wheat and six durum wheat varieties to be used for the specific cropping season. In most cases, variety-specific demand was not met by the quantity of seed produced. The age (years since release) of bread wheat varieties demanded by farmers averaged eight years, whereas the corresponding seed supplied averaged 6.8 years. Furthermore, the diversity of varieties produced did not match the diversity of varieties demanded by farmers. The top-10 wheat varieties contribute about 88% of seed demanded, but 98% of the seed produced, reflecting a narrower set of varieties supplied compared to the diversity of varieties demanded by farmers (Table 1). Disparity between variety-specific aggregate seed demand and supply manifests the challenge in Ethiopia's wheat seed system in addressing the interest of smallholder farmers (regardless of their gender) in accessing the variety of their choice.

Table 1.

Demand and production of certified seeds of major wheat varieties (2017 − 2018) in Ethiopia.

Varietal name	Year of release	Quantity of seeds (kg)		Disparity between demand and supply (%)
Varietal name	Year of release	Demanded	Produced (Supplied)	Disparity between demand and supply (%)
1. Ogolcho	2012	121,058	107,791	−11.0
2. Kakaba	2010	82,015	52,769	−35.7
3. Kingbird	2015	20,343	46,659	129.4
4. Danda’a	2010	73,439	36,689	−50.0
5. Hidassie	2012	54,100	32,520	−39.9
6. Shorima	2011	25,370	22,620	−10.8
7. Huluka	2012	21,245	16,400	−22.8
8. Pavon-76	1982	14,331	15,853	10.6
9. Kubsa	1994	37,240	5702	−84.7
10. Wane	2016	7403	4685	−36.7
Overall		521,603	349,934	−32.9
Percentage share of top-10 varieties		88	98

Note: Seeds of 42 varieties were demanded. Seeds of 25 varieties were produced and distributed. Source: Government of Ethiopia (2018).

Since 2000, the Ethiopian government has developed a series of seed laws, policies, and directives supporting overall seed systems development (Alemu, 2011; Beko, 2020). In recent years, the country has also tried to open up government-dominated seed marketing to the private sector through the direct seed marketing (DSM) scheme (Mekonnen et al., 2021). However, it remains challenging to address the diverse interests of smallholder farmers across diverse agroecologies, particularly for crops like wheat which is affected by the rust dynamics and where using own-saved seed is considered a viable option by a large share of smallholders.

Wheat in India

India has the largest number of wheat farms globally (just ahead of China): an estimated 37 million in 2020 (Erenstein et al., 2021), primarily smallholders growing wheat in the cool winter season across sub-tropical northern India. Wheat has shown positive but slow productivity growth over recent decades in India and compared to 1994−2003; the average productivity was 17% higher in 2009−2018 (Figure 1). There is also a significant yield gap for wheat in India, including in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains (>40%), but particularly in the irrigated high-input systems. Krishna et al. (2016) indicated a slowdown in the rate of cultivar turnover of wheat “breeder seed” indents (new varieties in the seed system) during the early 2000s, with the average varietal age increasing from nine years in 1997 to 12 years in 2009.

India's wheat seed market comprises both formal and informal delivery systems, which are not able to cater equitably and sustainably to the domestic demand for quality seeds. The National Seeds Policy 2002 inter alia emphasizes varietal development, seed production, quality assurance, seed distribution, marketing, and promotion of domestic seeds. Seed businesses are promoted through several measures, including the establishment of the National Gene Fund, Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Crops, and National Seeds Board as the apex body for the seed sector. A subsequent report identified that India's seed delivery system needs to be improved by labeling, promoting seeds produced in the tribal and hilly communities, and adopting special maintenance breeding programs for farming communities (ASSOCHAM and PwC India, 2009). However, it remains silent on how to strengthen local seed delivery and ensure that farmers of different genders and social groups have equitable access to quality seeds. Gender and social inclusion issues are not part of the discussion in most of these policy documents.

Table 2 presents the most popular wheat varieties in India with respect to the volume of breeder seed demand and production. For the 2017/18 production season, the aggregated demand figures show that 2.2 million tons of seeds of 150 wheat varieties were demanded for cultivation in the major wheat-producing states. Seed enterprises could produce more in terms of volume (3.1 million tons of seeds) but of fewer varieties (129). The top-10 varieties encompass 47% of seed demand and 46% of seed production. The average age of breeder seed indents placed is substantially lower (about seven years for the top-10 varieties, derived from seed demand and production) compared to the earlier observation by Krishna et al. (2016). There are significant regional differences in wheat varietal turnover; the turnover rate was slower in the eastern districts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain as compared to the western ones (Jose and Krishna, 2021).

Table 2.

Demand and production of breeder seeds of major wheat varieties (2017–18) in India.

Varietal name		Year of release	Quantity of seeds (kg)		Disparity between demand and supply (%)
Varietal name		Year of release	Demanded	Produced (Supplied)	Disparity between demand and supply (%)
1	HD 2967	2014	329,384	465,575	41.3
2	HD-3086	2014	154,360	168,500	9.2
3	GW-322	2002	56,420	147,791	161.9
4	Lok-1	1982	81,037	105,000	29.6
5	Purna (HI-1544)	2008	55,890	103,500	85.2
6	PBW-723 (Unnat PBW-343)	2017	79,800	101,835	27.6
7	RAJ-4238	2013	111,950	88,530	−20.9
8	WH 1105	2013	85,290	88,280	3.5
9	JW-3288	2012	34,550	80,641	133.4
10	GW-366	2007	40,600	71,405	75.9
	Overall		2,211,279	3,060,416	38.4
	Percentage share of top-10 varieties		47	46

Note: Seeds of 150 varieties were demanded. Seeds of 129 varieties were produced.

Source: Government of India (2018).

We have shown in Table 2 that most of these varieties were released within the last ten years. However, one variety—Lok-1—released in 1982, is still in high demand by wheat farmers. According to a recent study (Krishna and Veettil, 2022) conducted in the tribal belt of Madhya Pradesh, India, most farmers still cultivate Lok-1 due to the grains” superior taste and suitability for chapati-making (unleavened flatbread).

Gender-differentiation in wheat systems & innovations

Gender in wheat-based systems

There is increasing evidence of women's agricultural roles in the Global South. Still, only a few studies have looked into gender and social equity dimensions in wheat-based systems. In South Asia, Jafry (2013) found a lack of systematic studies of women's roles in wheat production and the types of challenges they face, let alone those faced by marginalized people. This lack of evidence was understood to represent significant challenges for policy and R&D interventions. Indeed, referring to the Indian Indo-Gangetic Plains, Erenstein and Thorpe (2011) have highlighted the “apparent homogeneity of vast irrigated plains,” which “masks” significant social diversity. Other authors have also cautioned against simple generalizations based on limited documentation.

In Ethiopia, the role of women in most of the on-farm seed management activities has been reported as equally important to men's, with women mostly responsible for cleaning seeds before planting (Alemu and Bishaw, 2015). Still, focusing on the Ethiopian wheat sector, Drucza and Tsegaye (2018) indicated the existence of a large knowledge gap on the part of development agencies on how to support and facilitate social norms changes to support gender equality.

These limited studies all point out the need for more research. This contributed to two recent purposive research projects addressing gender and social equity dimensions in wheat-based systems (Table 3). In the subsequent sections, we first provide an overview of gender differences in wheat trait preferences. We then review the gender dimensions of wheat innovation uptake, including how gender norms, resources, and agency shape development outcomes.

Table 3.

Examples of two purposive research projects addressing gender and social equity dimensions in wheat-based systems.

GENNOVATE (2014 − 2018)	Understanding gender in wheat-based livelihoods for enhanced WHEAT R4D impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ethiopia (2015 − 2019)
A comparative, qualitative research initiative on the interlinkages between gender norms, agency, and agricultural innovation, including 137 community case-studies across 26 countries. Forty-eight of the case-studies focused on wheat growing contexts in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.	A strategic gender research project to generate evidence on gender in wheat-based livelihoods in 3 key countries to influence CRP WHEAT and R&D partners and integrate gender and social inclusion in wheat technology development, adaptation, and diffusion. The research combined broad situational analysis by country with grounded, local level case-studies, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and lessons drawn from concrete planned interventions.

GENNOVATE (2014 − 2018)

Understanding gender in wheat-based livelihoods for enhanced WHEAT R4D impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ethiopia (2015 − 2019)

A comparative, qualitative research initiative on the interlinkages between gender norms, agency, and agricultural innovation, including 137 community case-studies across 26 countries. Forty-eight of the case-studies focused on wheat growing contexts in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

A strategic gender research project to generate evidence on gender in wheat-based livelihoods in 3 key countries to influence CRP WHEAT and R&D partners and integrate gender and social inclusion in wheat technology development, adaptation, and diffusion. The research combined broad situational analysis by country with grounded, local level case-studies, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and lessons drawn from concrete planned interventions.

Note: The two projects are complementary and were initiated under the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat Agri-food Systems (CRP WHEAT). GENNOVATE's wheat case-studies were primarily suoopported by CRP WHEAT. The second project primarily supported by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Gender and trait preferences in wheat varieties

Aspects related to milling, baking and cooking quality, and other processing and consumption-related wheat grain quality traits have long been essential elements of international wheat improvement (Guzmán et al., 2017; Nehe et al., 2019; Subira et al., 2014; Poole et al., 2021). As such, there is a significant technical knowledge base both regarding wheat grain quality traits and related processing issues, as well as traits related to interaction with abiotic stresses and agronomic factors. However, despite the focus on quality aspects in wheat R&D, the gendered dimensions of these and other traits are so far sparsely documented in the literature.

While the current documentation of gender differences in wheat trait preferences is limited, studies of trait preferences in other crops may help identify gender differences that could be relevant for gender-responsive wheat varietal improvement. For instance, while both men and women farmers tend to value grain yield and stress resilience, several studies show that they often rate crop characteristics differently and prefer different combinations of traits related to diverse production and consumption objectives or interests, e.g., for the market, own consumption, food security, special dishes, feed, etc. (Asrat et al., 2010; Badstue, 2006; Bellon et al., 2000; 2003; de Groote et al., 2011; Derese et al., 2018; de Groote and Kimenju, 2008; Hellin et al., 2010; Kretzschmar et al., 2018; Krishna and Veettil, 2022; Lunduka et al., 2012). Men have been found to prefer high-yielding varieties because of the associated potential for selling the surplus production. In most cultures, women are regarded as the custodians of family diets, and their reproductive roles may influence their priorities to include a focus on food security and/or varieties that are both palatable and nutritious and further meet processing and storing requirements (Badstue, 2006; Bellon et al., 2003; Doss, 2001; Hellin et al., 2010).

Weltzien et al. (2020) reviewed 39 articles, covering Sub-Saharan Africa (72%), Latin America (15%), and Asia (13%), including major cereals like wheat (1 study), maize (12), rice (6), sorghum (5), and pearl millet (4), and other crops. They report a number of traits that were reported only by women: vigor, adaptation to diverse growing conditions, leafiness, storage life, dehulling, threshing, the quantity of usable flour, quantity of stover usable as fuel, cooking time, taste and grain color, and tall harvest for ease of harvest In contrast, pest resistance, adaptation to intercropping, yield per hectare, suitability for the local dish, and resistance to waterlogging were mentioned only by men.

These findings on gender and trait preferences in other crops are similar to what has been found in a limited number of studies that consider wheat trait preferences. Ortiz-Ferrara et al. (2001) reported on male and female farmers” wheat trait preferences based on the participatory varietal selection in Nepal and commented that “women farmers are usually in charge of making bread and storing grain at home, while men farmers are more concerned with “filling the sacks”.” In a study from Ethiopia, Tsegaye and Berg (2007) point out the links between common wheat-based foods, quality trait preferences, and gender roles. Another study from Ethiopia (Nelson, 2013) assessed male and female farmers” preferences for six traits of bread wheat and highlighted the need for further research on the difference in quality preferences between men and women based on their respective gender roles. Mancini et al. (2017) also report a preference for wheat traits that differ by gender and location in Ethiopia.

Recent work has looked into preferred wheat varietal attributes as reported by male and female farmers in Ethiopia and Central India (Figure 2). In Ethiopia, a survey was conducted during the 2013/14 main cropping season in major wheat-growing regions of the country. During the survey, farm-household heads were asked to report three key attributes they consider in their varietal choice. The overall highest priority trait was grain yield, which was selected by more women than men (97% women and 88% men) (Figure 2(a)). In comparison, more men than women selected marketability as a priority (28% men and 17% women). Other highly-rated traits by both women and men included a taste for different dishes, early maturity, and disease tolerance, with the former two being rated as a priority by slightly more women than men.

Figure 2

Most important wheat varietal attributes as reported by male and female farmers. (a) Ethiopia. (b) Central India

In central India (Madhya Pradesh), a choice experiment was conducted among 420 wheat farming households (Krishna and Veettil, 2022). The choices included five attributes, such as heat-stress tolerance, chapati-quality, lodging tolerance, potential yield, and seed price, and the results were analyzed using a random utility framework. The authors found that both female and male farmers rank grain quality attributes (e.g., bold grains, chapati quality, the color of grain, etc.) as the most important traits, followed by yield (e.g., more tillers) and stress tolerance (e.g., lodging tolerance) while selecting the wheat varieties. Women considered the suitability of the grain for chapati-making and the color of grain as highly important variables, and they ranked these attributes as more important compared to male respondents. Men also considered quality attributes as highly important. Men attached relatively greater importance to a risk-ameliorating trait—lodging tolerance—than women in this study (Figure 2(b)). In comparison, women tended to maximize utility derived from both a lower seed price and an increase in risk tolerance.

Both the Ethiopian and Indian studies indicate wheat grain quality to be of major interest, not only for women but also for men. The Ethiopia data furthermore underlines grain yield as the key priority for both women and men. Taken together, these findings caution against stereotypical and binary assumptions associating women's trait preferences with reproductive roles only and men's with productive roles only. As these two studies indicate, reality appears to be nuanced.

Gender norms, resources, and agency in wheat innovation uptake

A farmer's gender can affect the adoption of new technologies and crop varieties (Doss, 2001). For example, in the central highlands of Ethiopia, 30% of male-headed households adopted improved wheat varieties compared to only 14% of female-headed households (Tiruneh et al., 2001). The authors found that in male-headed households, extension services and farm size had a positive effect on the adoption of improved wheat varieties. In contrast, radio ownership and farm size increased the odds in favor of adopting improved varieties for female-headed households. According to Klawitter et al. (2009), gender is becoming increasingly important in wheat technology uptake as more female-headed households produce wheat, primarily due to the increased involvement of men in wage laboring, both in rural areas and through urban migration.

The adoption of new agricultural technologies has been associated with access to land, labor, and other resources (Krishna et al., 2020). If men have better access to these resources than women, it is unlikely that new technologies will benefit men and women equally (Doss and Morris, 2000; Peterman et al., 2014). A recent study conducted in Nepal reports that under the same level of access to resources, technology adoption would be higher among female-headed households (Paudel et al., 2020). It is thus important to take the needs, preferences, and constraints of both men and women and other disadvantaged groups into account in the development of improved technologies and interventions to promote their equitable adoption (Doss, 2001; Kingiri, 2010; WB, FAO, and IFAD, 2008).

In some circumstances, special measures are needed to avoid exacerbating existing gender disparities. For example, in systems with a high dependency on wheat for food security, political stability, and rural incomes, the introduction of improved wheat varieties and related field technologies would be of high priority. However, where very conservative or restrictive gender norms exist, this would likely mainly benefit men, thus, potentially further augmenting inequalities. To mitigate this, complementary approaches would need to be developed, e.g., combining the introduction of field technologies with improved post-harvest technologies and/or gender-transformative interventions in relation to seed systems and value-chain development (Badstue et al., 2020; Beuchelt and Badstue, 2013). Intra-household gender dynamics affect the anticipated benefits and costs of adoption of technologies and have been associated with dis-adoption. An illustrative example is the case of small-scale irrigation in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania (Theis et al., 2018). In other words, depending on their responsibilities and knowledge, different household members may prioritize different traits or trait combinations. Similarly, depending on their position in the household and dominating social norms in the specific context, household members may have very different levels of input into technology adoption decisions.

As per contemporary gender norms, men in South Asia are generally associated with better access to productive assets, command over family labor, travel to distant jobs, and bringing their family members out of poverty. In contrast, women are associated with domestic and unpaid agricultural labor, men's associate labor, and are highly dependent on men in a number of regards. Looking at the experiences of 336 innovative women and men farmers from 19 countries, Badstue et al. (2018) observed that 26% of women innovators experienced the receipt of formal extension services, while that number was 39% for men innovators, indicating men's higher exposure to institutional support than that of women. Gender norms shape social relations, which in turn influence the wheat production system. In many contexts, technological innovations are considered under men's domain (Devkota et al., 2015), and women's ability to contribute is either not recognized at all or, where acknowledged, is framed as helping men rather than recognizing women themselves as farmers (Badstue et al., 2020). Badstue and colleagues further argue that gender norms influence formal institutions in the local opportunity structure, which in turn shape the opportunities of men and women, respectively, to access, and benefit from new technologies and services, e.g., agricultural extension. Due to their socially constructed roles and responsibilities and the various constraints that tend to weigh heavier on women, women are often particularly vulnerable to shocks. Similarly, in the Ethiopian context, gender differences were observed in innovation capacity based on the gendered sociocultural context in which rural men and women live and work, which tend to mostly benefit men (Drucza and Tsegaye, 2018).

Such work highlights how gender norms underpin power relations and influence the institutional settings and opportunity structure prevalent in society—including its agricultural R&D institutions and associated wheat R&D interventions—which often continue to privilege men's agency, authority, and resource control (Badstue et al., 2020). GENNOVATE findings have stressed the need to invest in institutional innovations in wheat agri-food systems and indicated several research-for-development (R4D) opportunities for wheat improvement and seed delivery systems in the regions. Such opportunities include developing and testing arrangements for local-level women (and men) providers of improved wheat seed and related varietal information, learning from men and women innovators, developing and testing agricultural extension arrangements that cater to women as well as men, and technology development with an end-user perspective (Badstue et al., 2020; 2017).

Conclusion

This paper makes a case for gender-sensitive technology development, dissemination, and evaluation in wheat-based systems in the Global South. The review highlights a limited yet relevant evidence-base regarding gender differences in wheat trait preferences and wheat innovation uptake and explores some of the implications in India and Ethiopia in particular. It is generally acknowledged that crop genetic improvement and related agricultural research effectively contribute toward productivity gains, which contribute to welfare improvements—as illustrated by the case of the Green Revolution (Gollin et al., 2018). Relatively recent and robust empirical evaluative evidence is, however, modest and calls for further investments, in particular with regards to the assessment of gender and social equity dimensions. Gender norms in wheat-based livelihoods shape agricultural innovation processes at various levels, and recent research highlights the importance of institutional innovations in agricultural R&D to question longstanding assumptions and stereotypes and make processes more inclusive and facilitate gender transformative change. Mainstreaming the interests of women and socially excluded people (extremely poor, marginalized caste groups, etc.) into wheat agricultural R&D is challenging but essential in order to strengthen gender equality and social inclusion in wheat variety development and seed delivery systems.

This scenario calls for a multi-pronged strategy. Above all, it is important to work toward change in mindsets and institutional arrangements to facilitate gender-intentional wheat R&D at all levels. This would include investment to better understand and integrate the relevant socially differentiated trait preferences into gender-intentional wheat product profiles where this is relevant, but equally to better understand and pursue alternative paths for wheat R&D to actively contribute towards gender equality. In this regard, it is crucial to design gender-intentional seed delivery systems that could ensure socially inclusive access to preferred seeds. Finally, it is pertinent to conduct robust studies to assess the livelihood impacts of these gender-intentional products and seed delivery systems in order to help fill a key gap in the literature and generate evidence-based policy recommendations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the support from the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat Agri-Food Systems (CRP WHEAT) and the project “Accelerating Genetic Gains in Maize and Wheat for Improved Livelihoods” (AGG), which is co-funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF, Grant INV-003439), the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR). The funding agencies had no other role in the study design, preparation of the manuscript, and decision to publish. The contents and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the associated and/or supporting institutions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, United States Agency for International Development, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, (grant number INV-003439)

ORCID iDs

Vijesh V. Krishna

Hom Gartaula

Olaf Erenstein

References

Alemu

(2011) The political economy of Ethiopian cereal seed systems: State control, market liberalization and decentralization. IDS Bulletin 42: 69–77.

Alemu

Bishaw

(2015) Commercial behaviours of smallholder farmers in wheat seed use and its implication for demand assessment in Ethiopia. Development in Practice 25(6): 798–814.

Asrat

Yesuf

Carlsson

, et al. (2010) Farmers’ preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption. Ecological Economics 69(12): 2394–2401.

ASSOCHAM, PwC India (2009) Sowing the policy seeds of a flourishing agriculture sector. New Delhi: The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.

Atlin

Cairns

Das

(2017) Rapid breeding and varietal replacement are critical to adaptation of cropping systems in the developing world to climate change. Global Food Security 12: 31–37

Badstue

Elias

Kommerell

, et al. (2020) Making room for manoeuvre: Addressing gender norms to strengthen the enabling environment for agricultural innovation. Development in Practice 30(4): 541–547.

Badstue

Lopez

Umantseva

, et al. (2018) What drives capacity to innovate? Insights from women and men smallscale farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 3(1): 54–81.

Badstue

Petesch

Williams

, et al. (2017) Gender and innovation processes in wheat-based systems: GENNOVATE Report to the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Badstue

(2006) Smallholder seed practices: Maize seed management in the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. PhD thesis. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.

10.

Beko

(2020) Seed for Change: The Making and Implementation of Seed Policies in Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation. Wageningen University.

11.

Bellon

Berthaud

Smale

, et al. (2003) Participatory landrace selection for on-farm conservation: An example from the central valleys of oaxaca, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50(4): 401–416.

12.

Bellon

Smale

Aguirre

, et al. (2000) Identifying appropriate germplasm for participatory breeding: An example from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca Mexico. Economics Working Paper. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

13.

Beuchelt

Badstue

(2013) Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart food production: Opportunities and trade-offs. Food Security 5(5): 709–721.

14.

Bimonte

(2002) Information access, income distribution, and the environmental kuznets curve. Ecological Economics 41(1): 145–156.

15.

De Groote

Kimenju

(2008) Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional quality in maize: Application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in Kenya. Food Policy 33(4): 362–370.

16.

De Groote

Kimenju

Morawetz

(2011) Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: The case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 42(1): 1–16.

17.

Derese

Shimelis

Laing

, et al. (2018) The impact of drought on sorghum production, and farmer’s varietal and trait preferences, in the north eastern Ethiopia: Implications for breeding. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science 68(5): 424–436.

18.

Devkota

Khadka

Gartaula

, et al. (2015) Gender and labour efficiency in finger millet production in Nepal. In Njuki

Parkins

Kaler

(Eds.) Transforming Gender and Food Security in the Global South. London and New York: Earthscan from Routledge, 100–119.

19.

Dörffel

Schuhmann

(2022) What is inclusive development? Introducing the multidimensional inclusiveness Index. Social Indicators Research 162: 1117–1148.

20.

Doss

(2001) How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. Agricultural Economics 25(1): 27–39.

21.

Doss

Morris

(2000) How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? Agricultural Economics 25(1): 27–39.

22.

Drucza

Tsegaye

(2018) Analytic overview, 2018: Opportunities for strengthening gender and social equity in Ethiopia’s wheat sector. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT. \

23.

Erenstein

Chamberlin

Sonder

(2021) Estimating the global number and distribution of maize and wheat farms. Global Food Security 30:100558.

24.

Erenstein

Jaleta

Mottaleb

, et al. (2022) Global trends in wheat production, consumption and trade. In: Reynolds

Braun

H.-J

. (Eds.) Wheat Improvement: Food Security in a Changing Climate. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 47–66.

25.

Erenstein

Thorpe

(2011) Livelihoods and agro-ecological gradients: A meso-level analysis in the indo-gangetic plains, India. Agricultural Systems 104(1): 42–53.

26.

Farnworth

Jafry

Bharati

, et al. (2021) From working in the fields to taking control. Towards a typology of women’s decision-making in wheat in India. The European Journal of Development Research 33: 526–552.

27.

Farnworth

López

Badstue

, et al. (2018) Gender and agricultural innovation in oromia region, Ethiopia: From innovator to tempered radical. Gender, Technology and Development 22(3): 222–245.

28.

Garbero

Marion

(2018) Understanding the dynamics of adoption decisions and their poverty impacts: The case of improved maize seeds in Uganda. Research Series Issue 28. Rome: IFAD.

29.

Gollin

Hansen

Wingender

(2018) Two blades of grass: The impact of the Green Revolution: NBER Working Paper 24744. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

30.

Guzmán

Autrique

Mondal

, et al. (2017) Genetic improvement of grain quality traits for CIMMYT semi-dwarf spring bread wheat varieties developed during 1965–2015: 50 years of breeding. Field Crops Research 210: 192–196.

31.

Hellin

Keleman

Bellon

(2010) Maize diversity and gender: Research from Mexico. Gender & Development 18(3): 427–437.

32.

Jafry

(2013) Integration of gender and social equity in R4D on wheat-based systems in South Asia: Scoping study report to the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

33.

Jafry

(2016) Making the case for gender sensitive climate policy: Lessons from south Asia/IGP. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8(4): 559–577.

34.

Jaleta

Hodson

Abeyo

, et al. (2019) Smallholders' coping mechanisms with wheat rust epidemics: Lessons from Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0219327.

35.

Jose

Krishna

(2021) Whither Indian wheat? Productivity plateau, Spatial heterogeneity, and R&D targeting. Review of Agrarian Studies 11(1): 22–27. http://ras.org.in/f2cc6655b32331112521e0ec16ad12bc.

36.

Kingiri

(2010) Gender and agricultural innovation: Revisiting the debate through an innovation system perspective: Discussion Paper 06. London: DFID.

37.

Klawitter

Cagley

Gugerty

, et al. (2009) Gender and cropping: Wheat in Sub-Saharan Africa: Report prepared for the Science and Technology Team of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Seattle.

38.

Kretzschmar

Mbanjo

EGN

Magalit

, et al. (2018) DNA fingerprinting at farm level maps rice biodiversity across Bangladesh and reveals regional varietal preferences. Scientific Reports 8(1): 14920.

39.

Krishna

Spielman

Veettil

(2016) Exploring the supply and demand factors of varietal turnover in Indian wheat. The Journal of Agricultural Science 154(02): 258–272.

40.

Krishna

Veettil

(2022) Gender, caste, and heterogeneous farmer preferences for wheat varietal traits in rural India. Plos One 17(8): e0272126.

41.

Krishna

Yigezu

Karimov

, et al. (2020) Assessing technological change in agri-food systems of the global south: A review of adoption-impact studies in wheat. Outlook on Agriculture 49, 89–98.

42.

Louwaars

de Boef

Edeme

(2013) Integrated seed sector development in Africa: A basis for seed policy and law. Journal of Crop Improvement 27(2): 186–214.

43.

Lunduka

Fisher

Snapp

(2012) Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? Food Policy 37(5): 504–510.

44.

Mancini

Kidane

Mengistu

, et al. (2017) Joining smallholder farmers’ traditional knowledge with metric traits to select better varieties of Ethiopian wheat. Scientific Reports 7(1): 9120.

45.

Mekonnen

Abate

Yimam

, et al. (2021) The Impact of Ethiopia’s Direct seed Marketing Approach on Smallholders’ Access to Seeds, Productivity, and Commercialization. Discussion paper 01998. Washington DC: IFPRI.

46.

Nehe

Akin

Sanal

, et al. (2019) Genotype x environment interaction and genetic gain for grain yield and grain quality traits in turkish spring wheat released between 1964 and 2010. PloS One, 14(7): e0219432.

47.

Nelson

(2013) Analysis of farmer preferences for wheat variety traits in Ethiopia: A gender-responsive study. MSc thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School. Ethaca, US: Cornell University.

48.

Ortiz-Ferrara

Bhatta

Pokharel

, et al. (2001) Farmer participatory variety selection in south Asia. In Reynolds

Skovmand

Trethowan

Singh

van Ginkel

(Eds.) Research Highlights of the CIMMYT Wheat Program, 1999–2000. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT, 33–37.

49.

Paudel

Gartaula

Rahut

, et al. (2020) Gender differentiated small-scale farm mechanization in Nepal hills: An application of exogenous switching treatment regression. Technology in Society 61: 101250.

50.

Peterman

Behrman

Quisumbing

(2014) A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in non-land agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. In: Quisumbing

Meinzen-Dick

Raney

Croppenstedt

Behrman

Peterman

(Eds.) Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap. Dordrecht: Springer, 145–186.

51.

Poole

Donovan

Erenstein

(2021) Agri-nutrition research: Revisiting the contribution of maize and wheat to human nutrition and health. Food Policy 100:101976.

52.

Sen

(1981) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

53.

Silva

Reidsma

Baudron

, et al. (2021) Wheat yield gaps across smallholder farming systems in Ethiopia. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41:12.

54.

Sisay

Verhees

FJHM

van Trijp

HCM

(2017) Seed producer cooperatives in the Ethiopian seed sector and their role in seed supply improvement: A review. Journal of Crop Improvement 31(3): 323–355.

55.

Subira

Peña

Álvaro

, et al. (2014) Breeding progress in the pasta-making quality of durum wheat cultivars released in Italy and Spain during the 20th century. Crop and Pasture Science 65(1): 16–26.

56.

Sumner

(2010) Global poverty and the new Bottom Billion: What if three-quarters of the world’s poor live in middle-income countries? (IDS working paper No. 349). Brighton, UK.: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

57.

Theis

Lefore

Meinzen-Dick

, et al. (2018) What happens after technology adoption? Gendered aspects of small-scale irrigation technologies in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania. Agriculture and Human Values 35(3): 671–684.

58.

Tiruneh

Tesfaye

Mwangi

, et al. (2001) Gender differentials in agricultural production and decision-making among smallholders in Ada, Lume, and Gimbichu Woredas of the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO).

59.

Tsegaye

Berg

(2007) Utilization of durum wheat landraces in east shewa, central Ethiopia: Are home uses an incentive for on-farm conservation? Agriculture and Human Values 24(2): 219–230.

60.

United Nations (2017) The Sustainable Development Goals report. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf

61.

USAID (2013) Getting to zero: A discussion paper on ending extreme poverty (No. 12). Washington, DC, USA.

62.

USAID (2016) U.S. Government Global Food Security Strategy: FY 2017–2021. Washington DC.

63.

Voss

Donovan

Rutsaerts

, et al. (2022) Gender inclusivity through maize breeding in Africa: A review of the issues and options for future engagement. Outlook on Agriculture, 50(4): 392–405.

64.

WB, FAO and IFAD (2008) Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington DC: World Bank, FAO and IFAD.

65.

Weltzien

Rattunde

Christinck

, et al. (2020) Gender and farmer preferences for varietal traits. In Goldman

(ed) Plant Breeding Reviews (Vol. 43). New York: Wiley and Sons, 243–278.

66.

World Bank (2015) A measured approach to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity: Concepts, data, and the twin goals. Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank.