Revised:May2020

GenderIssuesandHorticultureMarketsinPakistan

AneelaAfzal

DepartmentofSociologyandAnthropologyAridAgricultureUniversity,Rawalpindi,Pakistan

SisiraJayasuriyaandSarahMeehan

CentreforDevelopmentEconomicsandSustainabilityMonashUniversity,Melbourne,Australia

PreparedfortheACIARsponsoredprojecton“PolicyandInstitutionalReformstoImproveHorticulturalMarketsinPakistan(ADP2014/043)”

Revisedversion:May2020

2

ThispaperreviewstheavailableliteratureandinformationongenderaspectsofPakistanagricultureandthesocio-culturalfactorsconditioningandconstrainingfemaleparticipationineconomicactivities,(b)describesthemainstrandsoftheinternationalliteratureontheimpactofmodernisationofagriculturalvaluechainsonwomen,(c)anddiscussestheexperienceofaninitiativebythemultinationalfirmNestletodevelopamodernvaluechaininthePakistandairysectorinvolvingruralwomenandreportsonacasestudyoftwovillageswhereNestleoperates,and(e)drawsouttheimplicationsforimprovinggenderoutcomesofagriculturalvaluechainmodernisation.Ithighlightsthemajorrolewomenplayinproductionandcultivationofhorticulturalindustriesandtheneartotalexclusionofwomeninthemarketingsphere,therebyconstrainingdirectaccesstocashincomes.

3

GenderIssuesandHorticultureMarketsinPakistan

WomenplayamajorroleintheagriculturesectorofPakistan,includingitslivestockandhorticulturalindustries,butoccupyasubordinatepositionindecisionmakinganddirectaccess to revenues. Major policy or institutional reforms that change the patterns ofresourceuse, productivity, profitability and revenues are likely toproduceoutcomes thataffectnotonlytheoverallwelfareofruralhouseholdsandagriculturalproduceconsumers,but also have gender-differentiated impacts. This means that analyses of the potentialimpact of policy measures for reforming markets must pay attention not only to theiroverall impact on household incomes and welfare, but also to the specific impact suchreforms will have on women. Such gendered analyses must be grounded on anunderstandingof theexistingstructuresofgender relationsand their socio-cultural roots,andthedynamiccontextinwhichagriculturalmarketsreformswillbeimplemented.Inthispaperwe(a)brieflyreviewtheavailableliteratureandinformationongenderaspectsofPakistanagricultureandthesocio-culturalfactorsconditioningandconstrainingfemaleparticipation in economic activities, (b) review the main strands of the internationalliterature on the impact ofmodernisation of agricultural value chains onwomen, (c) andanalysethe experience of a specific development in the dairy sector of Pakistan – theinitiativebythemultinationalfirmNestletodevelopamodernvaluechaininthePakistandairy sector, and implications for improving gender outcomes of agricultural value chainmodernisation.Women’sroleinagricultureinPakistanPakistan has the one of second lowest recorded formal female labour force participation(FLFP)rates inAsia,wellbelowthatofneighbouringIndia,butalsoofcomparableMuslimmajority countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia. Low participation rates are attributedpartlytoculturalrestrictionsonfemalesworkingoutsidethehomeorownfarm.1Butithasa highly ‘feminised’ agriculture with women contributing a large and increasing share ofagricultural labour.Whileonlyaboutaquarterof the totalnumberof femalesofworkingageareengaged inpaidwork,over70%of themareemployed in theagricultural sector.The femaleparticipation (and femaleshare) in thepaidagricultural labour forcehasbeenincreasingovertime,whiletheshareofmalesengagedinpaidworkinagriculturehasbeendecreasing(Table1).

1While these restrictions apply in general to all females, women more affluent backgrounds or highlyeducatedwomenfacefewersocialsanctionsinengaginginpaidwork.Butinfactthereisastrongassociationbetweenhouseholdpovertyandwomen’s labour forceparticipation,withhigh ratesof female labour forceparticipationamongwomenfromthepooresthouseholds,whoareforcedtotakeuppaidemploymentoutofnecessity(see,forexample,Kabeer,2012).

4

Table1:LabourForceParticipationandEmploymentinAgriculturebyGender

YearLabourforceparticipationrate(%)

LabourforceEmployedinagriculture(%)

Male Female Male Female2001–02 82.7 16.2 37.2 64.52003–04 82.7 18 37.0 66.62007–08 82.4 21.8 35.2 73.82010–11 81.9 24.4 34.7 74.22012–13 81.1 24.3 32.9 74.9

Source:Balagamwala,GazdarandMallah(2015)basedonPakistanEmploymentTrends,2013

TheseverylowformallabourforceparticipationstatisticsofPakistan,however,understatetheactualcontributionoffemalelabourtoproductiveeconomicactivities.Themajorityofwomencontinuetobeinvolvedinunpaidworkontheirownfarms,andthisisnotcountedandreportedasworkinlabourforcestatistics(ADB,2016).Forexample,inPunjab,“about93 percent ofwomen in Punjab do not own land, half of themare engaged as farm andfamily labourandaround75percentof these receivenopayment for theirwork” (Batooland Nosheen, 2015: p. 110).2In addition to household chores, females are also majorcontributors to the rural economy in all three sub sectors: crop production, livestockproductionandcottage industry.Women’scontribution isparticularly large in thecaseoflivestock,where their labour contributionoftenexceeds70%of total labour.Notonlydotheformallabourforceparticipationstatisticsignorethehugeunpaidlabourcontributionoffemales,butstatisticsunder-reporteventheactuallevelsofpaidlabourforceparticipation(Bari,2000).This increasing ‘feminization’ of the agricultural labour force is an outcome of themovement of males out of agriculture. In Pakistan, males have greater spatial andoccupational mobility compared to females, and are in a better position to move intobetter-paid off-farm and non-agricultural jobs. “Women’s employment is limited by thesameculturalrestrictionsthatlimittheiraccesstoeducationandhealthservices,imposingserious constraints on their autonomy,mobility, and on the types of livelihoods that areavailabletothem.Amongthosewhodowork,labourmarketparticipationischaracterizedbyoccupations that tend tobe lowwage and keepwomen close tohome” (WorldBank,

2SeeJamaliandKhowaja(2015)fortheverysimilarsituationinSindh.Harvestingofcottonisregardedasalmostexclusivelywomen’swork(SiegmannandShaheen2008).

5

2015: 15). Indeed, the increasing FLFP is driven largely by ‘distress-employment’ wherewomenareforcedbyeconomicnecessitytoundertakehiredemployment(Zaidi,Farooqetal,2016).ThisisthesituationthroughoutPakistan,thoughthereareregionalvariations(seeSameeet.al.2015).

But,despitethislargefemalelabourcontributiontoproductiveactivities,femaleshavelittleor nomanagerial control over agriculturalmanagement decisions: “…in spite of her rolesand responsibilities in agriculture, women have minimal role in decision-making due toexistingculturalnorms”(BatoolandNosheen,2016:p.104). InSindh,forexample,wherefemaleinvolvementincottonmarketingissignificantlyhigherthaninmanyothercashcrops,thoughmorethan75percentofwomencontributetocottonharvesting,onlyathirdhavesomeinvolvementinmarketing.Inhorticulture,womenareheavily involvedinproductionand harvesting activities but “are culturally constrained to participate in production andrelatedactivitiesanddonotcrosstheboundariesdefinedbymalefamilymembers“(JamaliandKwoja,2015:p.129;seealsoManganandRuthbah,2018).

Socio-culturalContextinPakistanandGenderIssuesinAgricultureThe gender issues in agriculturemust be viewed in the context of the veryhigh levels ofgenderinequalityinalmosteverymajorindicator(Table2).Thepotentialimpactofmodernvalue chainsmust be seen within a gender perspective that recognises the deep rootedsocio-cultural constraints to female participation in specific economic activities includingmarketing, reflected in their low levelsofownershipand controlofphysical and financialandhumancapital,andlackofskills,educationandotherformsofhumancapital.Thesearecritical indeterminingtheextenttowhichimprovementsinmarketsandmodernisationofagriculturalvaluechainscanbenefitruralwomen.Pakistanranksaslowas136inworldintheGenderInequalityIndex(HumanDevelopmentReport2019),andis151intheGlobalGenderGapindex(whichmeasuresthegapbetweenmen andwomen in four categories: economic participation and opportunity, educationalattainment, health and survival and political empowerment) (World Gender Gap Report2020).

Table2:IndicatorsofGenderinequality

LabourForceParticipationRate(%)

GNI percapita(PPP2011US$)

MeanYears ofSchooling

GenderDevelopmentIndex

GenderInequalityIndex

F M F M F M Value RankPakistan 23.9 81.5 1570 8605 3.8 6.5 0.747 547 136Bangladesh 36.0 81.3 2373 5701 5.3 6.8 0.895 536 129India 23.6 78.6 2625 10712 4.7 8.2 0.829 501 122

6

Notes:

a.GNI:GrossNationalIncomepercapita

b.TheGenderDevelopmentIndexindicatesgenderinequalitiesinachievementinthesamethreedimensionsoftheHumanDevelopmentIndex:health(measuredbyfemaleandmalelifeexpectancyatbirth),education(measuredby femaleandmaleexpectedyearsof schooling for childrenandmeanyears foradultsaged25yearsandolder);andcommandovereconomicresources(measuredbyfemaleandmaleestimatedGNIpercapita)

c. Gender Inequality Index reflects gender based inequalities in three dimensions: reproductive health,empowerment,andeconomicactivity.Reproductivehealthismeasuredbymaternalmortalityandadolescentbirthrates;empowermentismeasuredbytheshareofparliamentaryseatsheldbywomenandattainmentin secondaryandhigher educationby eachgender; andeconomicactivity ismeasuredbythelabourmarketparticipationrateforwomenandmen.TheGIIcanbeinterpretedasthelossinhumandevelopmentduetoinequalitybetweenfemaleandmaleachievementsinthethreeGIIdimensions.

Source:UNDP:HumanDevelopmentReport2019

Thesituationisparticularlybadintheagriculturalsectorandruralareas.Over80percentofthewomenaredisempoweredintermsofownershipofassets,controloverincomeearned,and control over use of income earned despite their large contribution to productiveactivities(Ahmed,Hameed,Khan,andRafi,2016:p.415).Manydevelopmentsinthewidereconomytendtoexacerbate,ratherthanalleviate,genderinequality,giventhespecificsocio-culturalcontextofPakistan.Asinmanyotherdevelopingcountries,increasingfeminisationofagricultureinPakistanistakingplaceinthecontextofarelative decline in agricultural productivity and widening urban-rural income differences.AgricultureaccountsforaroundafifthtoaquarterofGDP,butemploysover40percentofthetotallabourforce,indicatingthatagriculturehaslowerlabourproductivitythantherestof the economy. Consequently, there are large rural-urban income differences aswell aslargedifferencesbetweenurbanandruralwages.In2012ruralwageswere9.9%loweronaveragethaninurbanareasinPakistanandthisgapwaslargerforwomen.Controllingforfactorssuchaseducation,age, femalewageswereonaverageonly55%ofmalewages in2012anditislessthan50%inagriculturewhichemploysthevastmajorityofwomen.Thisgaphasbeenwideningovertime(WorldBank,2016;seealsoZaidiandFarooqetal,2016).Thesegenderinequalitiesinwagesareonlyonepartoflargegendergapsinmostindicatorsofwellbeing.Womennotonlyhavelowerratesoflabourforceparticipationandwages,butalsohavesignificantlylowerhealthandnutritionlevels,literacy,andmobility,withgreatergapsinruralareas.Publicexpendituresoneducation(2%ofGDP)andhealth(0.23%ofGDP)overallareextremelylowinPakistan,soeducationandhealthindicatorsareunsatisfactoryamongbothmales and females, but female indicators areworse than thoseofmales.3In2014, female literacywas 47% comparedwith amale literacy rate of 70%. Though girls’schoolenrolmentshaveincreasedovertime,gendergapspersistandarewidestatmiddleschool leveland in ruralareas.4Genderparityhasbeenalmost fullyachievedatgraduate

3ThesefiguresarefromZaidi,Farooqetal.(2016)4Thelowlevelsoftransitionfromprimarytomiddleschoolamonggirlsisobserveddespiteresearchfindingsthatshowthatmarginalratesofreturntoadditionalgradesofcompletedschoolingissignificantlyhigherfor

7

andpostgraduate levels,but thatdoesnot lead togenderparity in the labour force,withthe vast majority of female graduates not going into the labour force at all (except inmedicine,where58%dojointhelabourforce).Thesegenderdisparitiesaretheoutcomesofspecificsocio-culturalfactorsthataffecttheirposition in thehousehold andwider society, their intra-householdbargainingpower, andtheir ability and willingness to participate in economic andmarket activities and relatedsocialinteractions.Thesocio-culturalenvironmentforfemalesischanginginPakistan,butanyanalysisofhowchanges in theagricultural systems, includingchanges inhorticulturalmarketing,willaffectthepositionofwomenmusttakeintoaccounttherealitiesofexistingsocio-culturalnormsintoaccount.ThegenderdimensionsofsocialandeconomicactivitiesinPakistanshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofthepervasiveinfluenceof‘Purdah’-thepracticeofgendersegregationandthe seclusionofwomen inpublic. It reflectsa setof customarynorms,beliefsandvaluesthat define the dominant models of masculinity and femininity and allocate men andwomen,boysandgirlstodifferentrolesandresponsibilitiesonthebasisofthesedefinitions,generallyassigninga lowervalue to thoseaptitudes,abilitiesandactivities conventionallydefinedas‘feminine’relativetothoseconventionallydefinedas‘masculine’(Kabeer,2012).Purdahimposesasetof‘gender-specificconstraints’onpatternsofbehaviourwhichapplytowomenandmenbyvirtueoftheirgender.WhilethepracticeoffemaleseclusionisoftenassociatedwithIslamiccommunities,itswidelypracticedevenamongHinducommunitiesinIndia, and the specific formof thesepracticesdiffers substantiallynotonly across Islamiccommunities in different countries but also from place to place and between differentethnicandtribalgroupsevenwithinacountry(Obermeyer,1992).5Purdahencompassesawiderangeofconstraintsondress,patternsofsocialinteractionandotherformsofsociallyacceptablebehaviour,butthemostimportantaspectsofPurdahthatinfluencewomen’sposition in rural agriculturalhouseholds inPakistanare, (a) those thatdefineherprimaryroletobeingagooddomesticduties,andbeingagoodwifeandmotherand,(b)thosethatrestrictsocialinteractionswithoutsiders,particularlywithmalesoutsidethe set of immediate family. While there are significant variations across regions andcommunities,ingeneralsheisnotexpectedtobetheprimarybreadwinnerofthefamily,togooutside thehomeandwork toearnher living,or tobe theprimarydecisionmaker inmajorhouseholddecisions.Thesenormsgenerateasocialstigmaonworkingoutsidehome,reinforcedbylackofsafepublic transport and security issues, resulting in low levels of (formal) labour forcefemalesthanformales(Aslam,2009).Thispartlyexplainedbylackofaccesstoschoolsforgirlsinmanypartsofthecountry,butisalsosuggestiveofsocialattitudesthatinhibitsendingoldergirlstoschools.5Inacomparativeanalysisofwomen’sautonomyinIndiaandPakistan,JejeebhoyandSathar(2001)concludethatsocialinstitutionsofgenderwithinregions,ratherthanreligion,determinesthenatureandstrengthofthesepractices:“ThereislittlesupportfortheargumentthatMuslimwomenaredisadvantagedintermsofautonomy,atleastwhencomparedtoHinduwomenfromthesameregion”……….once,regioniscontrolled,levelsofautonomyarenotverydifferentamongHindusandMuslims.WomeninTamilNadu(SouthIndia)–whetherMuslimorHindu-experiencefargreaterautonomythanwomenineitherUttarPradesh(NorthIndia)orPunjab(Pakistan).

8

participation rates (Table 4). When economic necessity forces women from poorerhouseholdstoundertakepaidoutsideemploymenttheymustcopewiththissocialstigma.This produces a pronounced ‘u-curve’ in labour force participation because whenhouseholdsincrease,theywithdrawwomenfromtheworkingoutsidehomeashiredlabour.Further,thestigmaattachedtoworkingoutsidehomealsolowersthesocialstatusofyoungwomeninthemarriagemarket.

Theserestrictionsbarwomenfromplayingadirectroleinmarkettransactionswheretheyneed to interact with outside males, and results in a situation where control over farmoperations and decisionmaking becomes vested in themales.Within households,malesdominate ‘market work’ (work on own farm, work on others’ farm and non-farmwork),whilewomenhavethemajorshareofhouseholdtasks(FafchampsandQuisumbing,2003).“Men, as primary earners are perceived to be capablemanagers of productive resources.Women, on the other hand, are considered to be dependentswithout experience andnotabletohandlepropertymattersandvaluablephysicalassets.Further,particularly inSouthAsia,womenare considered tobememberof their husband’s family.Giving themcontroloverpropertyisakintogivingitawaytoherhusbandandhisfamily”(ZaidiandFarooqetal,2016:p.46).

Table4:LabourForceParticipationRatesinPakistan

Source:PakistanEconomicSurvey2017-18These cultural norms have had precedence over Islamic religious teachings conferringinheritance and property rights to women. Even when a woman inherits land, she isgenerally unable to operate the land, so land is transferred to a male family member.Becauseofall thesefactors,asseen inTable5,ownershipofagriculturalassets,aboveall

9

themost importantasset, land,hasbecomeconcentratedamongmales to thenear totalexclusionoffemales.6

Table5:DistributionofassetownershipinPakistan(%ownedbyfemales)

Alone Jointly AloneandJointly

House 2.0 7.4 1.3Land 2.0 1.8 0.1

Source: Zaidi, Y. and Farooq, S et al (2016) based on Pakistan Demographic and HealthSurvey(PDHS)2012-13Theexclusionoffemalesfromownershipofassetsalsoconstrainstheiraccesstofinancialmarketsandborrowings, to land,machineryandotheragricultural inputs,and limits theircapacity to engage directly or independently in economic activities. Despite efforts toexpandfemaleaccesstofinancialmarketsthroughvariousschemesincluding:microfinanceprogrammes,accesstofinanceandborrowingsremainsmaledominated(Figure2).In thesecircumstances,understandably, femaleshave littleornopower toexercisemuchinfluenceonfarmingdecisions,andmoregenerallyonhouseholdeconomicdecisions.

Figure2:DistributionofGrossLoanPortfolio

6Thereisalargeliteratureonthecomplexinteractionsbetweenpurdah,dowrysystem,under-investmentinfemaleeducationandotherformsofhumancapital(see,forexample,

10

Zaidi,Y.andFarooq,Setal(2016)basedonPakistanDemographicandHealthSurvey(PDHS)2012-13Butneithertheeconomicnorthesocialenvironmentsarestatic.

The social restrictionsandpracticesassociatedwithpurdahare changing inPakistanwithhigher levels of female education, exposure to outside influences, and both economicnecessityandneweconomicopportunities.Thishasbeenoccurringinurbanareasforquitesometime(Mirza,1999),butisalsonowbeginningtohappeninruralareas.

Higherlevelsofgirls’schoolenrolmentsarealsoindicativeofchangingattitudesinsociety,and there’s beginning to be greater recognitionof the valueof female educationboth interms of higher income earning capacity and household benefits that come from havingmore educated females.Makin (2017), based on econometric analysis of field data fromPunjab(Pakistan)concludesthatenhancedoutsideincomeearningabilityisbecomingmorevalued in the marriage market, leading to lower dowry payments, and her interviewssuggest thatmanyworkingwomenbelieve thatworkingoutsidehelps them findabettermarriagematch.AsBatoolandNosheen(2016:p.105)pointout,“Menareusedtomarketsand women with domestic work but trends in Punjab are changing with its economystrengtheningandchangingsocialnorms”.Thechanges inPunjabareparalleledbysimilarchangesinotherprovinces,thoughthepaceofchangevariesacrossdifferentprovincesanddifferentethnicgroups.

Integrationintomodernvaluechains:impactonwomen

ThesituationofruralhouseholdsinPakistancanimproveinasustainablewayonlyifagricultural productivity and incomes are raised through modernisation and reforms ofvaluechains.7Butwhatwillbethe impactofsuchreformsonthepositionofwomen,andwhatkindsofpoliciesandmeasurescanhelpwomentocapturebenefitsfromvaluechaindevelopment?Thishasgeneratedmuchdebateandanextensive literatureonthevariousissueshasemergedinrecentyears.

Marketreformscanbythemselvesimprovepricetransmissionthroughthevaluechainsandimprove prices received by the primary producers. While such price improvements cancontributetoimprovingtheconditionsoftheproducers,arguably,themostimportantlongtermimpactofmarketreformsisthattheyprovideanenablingenvironmentwherebytheentire production, harvesting, processing, transport and deliver of final products toconsumerscanbe transformed intoamodernvaluechainsupplyinghighqualityandhighvalueproductstofinalconsumers.Thesedomorethansimplydeliverfarmproducetofinalconsumers. In fact the ‘middle-segments’ (processing, wholesale, logistics) of agri-foodvalue chains account for 30-40% of value added and costs and have been rapidly

7Weuse‘valuechains’ratherthan‘supplychains’inthispaperrecognisingthatthesetermsareusedintheliteraturetolookatissuesfromavalueadditionandproductdifferentiationpointofview(aconsumersideperspective)intheonecase,andfromthesupplierperspectiveintheother(Reardon,2015).

11

modernisingandtransforming,undergoingmajortechnologicalandinstitutionalchangesinrecentyears(seeReardon,2015,foranoverviewandreviewofthesedevelopments).Inthecaseofhorticulture,theincentivesformodernisationofsuchvaluechainsarisesfrompowerfuldemand-sideforces;risingurbanisation,highernumbersofworkingwomen,andincreasingincomes(reflectedintheemergenceofabettereducatedmiddleclassthatseekshigherlevelsoffoodqualityandfoodsafety)inthecountry,aswellasthe(currentlyalmostunexploited) potential for penetrating lucrative foreign markets, create large profitopportunitiesforthePakistanhorticulturalindustries.But these opportunities can be realised only if producers are provided with the rightincentives - higher prices for better quality production and the technologies, skills andphysicalequipmentandfacilitiesforbetterharvesting,storageandprocessing.Internationalexperience suggests that this kind of change and transformation typically involves thelinkageofsmallprimaryproducerswithlargemoderndownstreamagri-businessfirms.Thisis aprocesswhere thevalue chains shrink in termsof thenumberof intermediaries, andlengthenintermsofdistanceasmoreandmoreproductsreachconsumersnotonlywithinthe country but also in distant foreign markets, and products move from being bulkcommodities to highly differentiated (often branded) products that meet stringentstandardsoffoodqualityandfoodsafety.

Integratingsmallproducers intosuchmodernvaluechains isverychallenging. Inorder toensure that products meet high standards, downstream firmsmust be able to count onreliablesupplierswhohaveboththeabilityandtheincentivestoachievesuchstandards.Ifmutuallybeneficial relationshipsbetweensuch firmsandresourcepoorsmall farmerscanbe established whereby the farmers get access to better technology, resources, stablemarketsandhigherprices,whilethefirmsgetstablesuppliesofqualityproductsinreturn,thecorporateprofitabilityobjectives,andruraldevelopmentandpovertyalleviationgoalscoincide.Thatsuchrelationships,basedonvariousinstitutionalinnovationssuchascontractfarmingandothermechanisms,arefeasibleandviable,isshownbythenumerousexamplesofsuccessfuldevelopmentofagriculturalvaluechains inmanydevelopingcountries,mostof which are in horticultural industries (e.g. the vegetable export sector in Madagascar(Mintenetal., 2009), vegetablevaluechains inPhilippines (Concepcion,DigalandUy,2007),the horticultural export sectors in Kenya, Peru and Ethiopia (Humphrey et al., 2004; SchusterandMaertens,2016;Staelensetal.,2016)).However,therehasbeenmuchconcernaboutthedistributionalimpactsofthepenetrationofmodernvaluechainsintoruralcommunities.Anymajorchangesineconomicconditionscan create both ‘gainers’ and losers’ at the least in the short to medium term, and the‘losers’ are typically thosewho lack the skills and assets that are in demand in the newcircumstances, and whose bargaining power is weak. There is a huge imbalance in thebargainingpowerof theparties thatarebrought intoa relationship - small resource-poorproducers and large, modern agribusiness firms, often globally networked giantmultinationals. The transactions costs associated with supervision of a large number ofsmall producers, enforcement of standards and production practices, potential scaleeconomiesandrequiredhigherskilllevels,modernagri-foodfirmsoftenprefertodealwithlarger and better endowed producers and . On the other hand, given the asymmetry in

12

bargaining power, and the skill and resource requirements, poorer rural farmers andhouseholdsmayfindthattheycannotbenefitfromsuchvaluechains.Theseconcernsaremagnifiedwhenconsideringthepotentialimplicationsforruralwomen,who are typically even more handicapped by their lower education and skill levels,restricted mobility and constrained access to markets.8These has been evidence that insomecases,suchasinthehorticulturesectorinKenya(Dolan,2001),riseofsupermarketsin many developing countries (Reardon, Pingali and Stamoulis (2006), and in the SouthAfrican fruit sector (Barrientos, Dolan and Tallontire, 2003), women have been indeedadversely affected. These concerns raised the question: “Are African horticulture valuechainsarebearersofgenderinequality”?9However, after reviewing the large literature that has developed on the distributionaloutcomesofmodernhorticulturalvaluechains,MaertensandSwinnen(2012)paintamoremixedpicture,concludingthatsuchadversedistributionaloutcomesarenotuniversal,anddiscuss the channels throughwhich rural communities, includingwomen, are affected bymodernvaluechains.Thesevaluechainscangeneratebenefitstoruralcommunitiesintwoways, both through product markets and labour markets, with the impact and benefitsdepending on factors such as the extent of agro-industrialisation, the level of verticalcoordinationandtheoccurrenceofmarket interlinkingacrosscountriesandsectors.First,farm-householdsareaffectedthroughtheproductionandmarketingofhigh-valueproducein contract-farming type schemes. Though it is possible that large corporatesmayexploittheir superiorbargainingpower toexploit thesmallproducers,unlessproducers feel thatthey gain from relationships with purchasers of their products, such relationships areunlikely tobeviableand sustainable in the long term.Hencepurchasersof farmproducehaveanincentivetoenterintomutuallybeneficialproductionandtradingarrangements,aspurelyonesidedrelationshipsdonotlastovertime.Bothrecenttheoreticalandempiricalresearchnowsuggestthatfarmersgenerallygainfromparticipationinhigh-valuecontract-farmingschemesthroughenhancedaccesstoinputs,reducedproductionandmarketingrisk,improvedtechnologyandproductivity,andultimatelyhigherincomes.Second,ifhigh-valuevaluechainsarecharacterisedbycontractingwith largecommercial farmsorbyverticallyintegrated estate production, or if labour-intensive post-harvesting and processing isneeded, ruralhouseholdsgain through labourmarketeffects; these labourmarketeffectsareparticularlybeneficialtothepooresthouseholds.Howwould these labourmarket impacts affectwomen? The empirical experience showsthattheactualoutcomesareverymuchcontext-dependentandcanvaryevenfromcroptocrop.Someproductsaremorelikelytoenhancedemandforfemalelabourbecausefemalesareconsidered‘better’forsometypesofoperationsforavarietyofreasons.AccordingtoKimenye (2005), in Kenya females are considered to be better at harvesting beans. InSenegal, Maertens and Swinnen (2012) report that agro-industrial firms prefer to hirefemalesbecause theybelieve thatwomenhavebetter capabilities for delicateharvesting

8Immobilefactorswhoareconstrainedfrommovingintothenew,moreprofitableindustriesoractivitiestypicallytendtobethelosers.Totheextentthatthepoor,orfemales,arehamperedintheiroccupationalmobilityforwhateverreasonandunabletoswitchtothemoreprofitablesectors,theyarelikelytobehurt.9SeethediscussioninMaertensandSwinnen(2009)

13

andhandlingoffreshproduce;exceptforharvestingmango,whichinvolvesclimbingtreesand for which male workers were preferred. The overall outcomes for women may notalwaysbepositive,evenwhen there isemploymentofwomen innewvalue chains.Guijtand van Walsum (2008) examined the impact of ‘Fair Trade’ mango production andmarketing in Burkina Faso and found that while some women gained from the newemployment opportunities provided by the packing station, other women suffered fromreduced marketing opportunities. Mangoes that women used to sell locally were nowmarketed internationally,butwomen’srole inthe internationalmarketingchainappearedtobemuchsmallerthanitwasinthelocalmarket.MaertensandSwinnen(2012)summarisethefindingsfroma largenumberofstudiesandpointoutanumberoffactorsthataffectthepositionofwomenfollowingtheestablishmentofimprovedmarketingsystemsandmodernvaluechainsasfollows:

1. Biasesthatconstrainwomen’saccesstoproductionandlabourcontracts2. Evenifwomenareincludedinsuchcontracts,theymaybeinaninferiorbargaining

situation because of low education, and poorer access to information andtechnologyandproductiveresources

3. If women are excluded from these production and labour contracts, theymay beworse off because their work intensity, levels of drudgery and risk, on the familyfarmmay increasewhenhusbandand/ormale siblings gain thesemoreprofitablecontracts

4. Highvaluemodernfarmingmayincreasetheproductivityandincomesofmen,whilerelegatingwomentolowerproductivitywork,therebyincreasinggenderinequality

5. Intra-familydecisionmakingandbargainingpowersaffectsoutcomes.Whilehigherincome from the modern farming systems may increase overall family income,womenmaynotbenefit if theyareexcludedfromaccesstobetter incomeearningopportunities and they lack decision making power over incomes within thehousehold.Ontheotherhand, ifwomendogainaccesstothemoreremunerativeincome earning opportunities, they will not only gain from higher householdincomes,butalsogaingreaterwithin-householdbargainingpowerandcontroloverdecisionmaking.

Thesefactorsprovideausefulchecklistofquestionstoaskandinvestigatewhenconductinganalysisoftheeffectsofspecificmarketreformsandtheirconsequences,.Theyalsoprovidesome guidance into how pro-women policies and measures can be formulated andimplemented in specific socio-cultural contexts. In thenext sectionwebriefly discuss theexperienceofthecaseofamodernvaluechain inthedairysectorofPakistan, theNestleDairy project, and consider what lessons can be drawn for gender outcomes if marketreformsleadtosignificantdevelopmentofmodernvaluechainsinhorticulture.Modernisingdairyvaluechains:theNestleexperienceTherearemanysimilaritiesaswellasimportantdifferencesbetweenthemarketsfordairyand horticultural products. Urbanisationand higher incomes are rapidly increasing thedemand for both these products, and the international market also offers exportopportunitiesifrequiredqualitystandardscanbemet.Pakistanisnotonlyalargeproducer

14

ofhorticultureproductsbutalsooneoftheworld’slargestdairyproducers,butnotonlyhasit been unable to develop expiry markets, it has even been unable to meet increasingdomesticdemand.10Milk producers are typically small farmers, with small herd sizes (over 80% of producershaveherdsizebelow4animals)andfewresources.Productionandprocessingtechnologiesare primitive,mechanisation almost non-existent,milk yields are low (reflecting the poorqualityofbreedingstock-twothirdsofthemilkcomefromverylowyieldingbuffalos–thelow quality of feed and poor animal health), marketing chains are long and inefficient,wastageandotherlossesarehigh,thequalityofproductprovidedtoconsumersislow,andadulterationandcontaminationarepervasive.Onlyasmallfractionoftotalmilkproductionisprocessedandmarketedthroughlargescalemodernprocessing (‘formal’)channels (Figure3).Ahighproportion(60%) isconsumedbyfarmhouseholds,andtheremaindersold.Thoughsome farmerscarry theirmilk tourbancentresonbicyclesormotorcycles,alargeproportionofmilkissoldthroughintermediaries(Dodhis). The smaller Dodhis collect small amounts of milk from farmers at farm gate,middlesizedDodhiscollectfromsmallDodhisandselltolargeDodhis.Theytransportmilkoverlongdistances,ofteninextremeweatherconditions.AnAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)report (Malik and Luijkx, 2004), estimatedmilk losses due to the lack of cold storage atabout15to20percentoftotalmilkproductioninsomeareas.DuringthesummerDodhisadd ice(oftenmadewithdirtywater)aswellasbacterial inhibitors,suchaspenicillinandother harmful chemicals, to themilk to prevent spoilage, and other adulterants (such aswashingpowderandmaizeflour)toenhancevolumeandwhiteness(Zia,MahmoodandAli,2011).

Figure3:Sharesofprocessedandrawdairyproducts

Source:Aslam(2012)

10Insteadithasbeenimportingincreasingquantitiesofdairyproducts,particularlypowderedmilk,whichisusedbymanymilkprocessingplantstoproduceUHTmilkwhichhasalongershelflife,andisingreaterdemandasconsumersbecomemoreconsciousoffoodsafetyissues.

15

Theincreasingdomesticdemandforbetterprocessed,safeandhygienicmilkhascreatedamarketopportunitythathasattractednotonlydomesticbutalsolargemultinationalfirmsinto the Pakistan dairy sector (such as the Swiss firm Nestle, and the Dutch firmFrieslandCampina,whichpurchasedacontrollinginterestinalocalfirmEngroFoods).But all firms that are willing to invest in the storage facilities and processing plants toproduce better quality dairy products face the problem of procuring stable supplies ofuncontaminatedgoodqualityfreshmilkonacommerciallyviablescale.Inprincipletheycan(a)buyfromDodhis,(b)assistexistingfarmerswithtechnology,capitalandskillstoproduceand deliver quality milk and source fresh milk directly from them (the contract farmingmodel–‘DairyHub’),or(c)theycanestablishverticallyintegrateddairyproductionsystemsbyestablishingtheirownlargescalemoderndairyfarms.InPakistan firmshavebeenadoptingall thesemodels, andoftena combinationof them.EngroFoods “hasmadebetter connectivitywith largedairy farms to improvemilk supplyand also help them to adopt better farmmanagement practices. The company has alsoestablished corporate dairy farming in the private sector which ensures timely supply ofqualitymilkforprocessingandproducingotherdairyproducts.Someotherbigfarmerssuchas Sapphire Dairies, Dada Dairies, Al-Tahur Dairies, Sharif Dairies etc, have alreadyintegrated their supply chains by establishing commercial farms” (Zia,Mahmood and Ali,2011:17).Nestle, however, having invested in establishing its largest dairy product factory inKabirwala, Punjab, opted to source most milk directly from farmers, and claims to haveachievedexcellentresultsnotonlyinraisingthequantityandqualityofmilk,farmincomeandaverageherdsize,butalso in improvingthepositionofwomeninsmalldairyfarminghouseholds. This success is attributed to the way they developed their milk sourcingstrategybasedonthe‘CreatingSharedValue’(CSV)approach.According to Niels Christiansen (2014), who claims to have coined the term CSV in 2005when he was Vice Chairman of Public Affairs at Nestle, it “simplymeans that inmakingbusiness decisions on future plans and investments, Companies simultaneously considerwhatlong-termvaluecanbecreatedbothforsocietyandforshareholders.Thisrequiresalong-termbusinessperspectiveandisbasedontheassumptionthatchancesforsustainablebusinesssuccessareincreasedwhenacompany,asappropriatewithinthebusinessstrategy,invests in social aspects that improve business conditions. CSV also implies a processwherein a company assesses its value chain and identifies those primary points ofintersectionbetween thecompanyandsocietywheresocial investmentscan improve thechancesofbusinesssuccess”(p354).CSV is now accepted as a business strategy that in some circumstances can reconcilebusinessprofitabilitygoalswithwidersocialandcommunitygoals,particularlyafterMichaelPorterpopularised it (seePorterandKramer,2011). Inprinciple it canbe thoughtofasastrategywhereafirmstepsintoprovidesometypesofquasi-publicgoodsinenvironmentswheremarketfailuresarepervasiveandgovernmentsareweakorineffective.Thesuccessof such strategies, that can encompass a range of different approaches including various

16

formsofcontractfarming,naturallydependsontheextenttowhichcontractsbetweenthefirmandsuppliersfromtargetcommunitiesareincentivecompatibleandsustainable.Amodernfirmfaceshugechallengeswhenitplanstosourcestablesuppliesofaninputofconsistently high quality from small farmers who lack skills, training, capital, and otherresources, and are un-accustomed to the demands and requirements of amodern valuechain.Christiansen(2014:355)detailsthemeasuresNestlehasadoptedtoovercomethesechallenges, stressing theneed for the firmtohavea long termplanninghorizon:“First, itrequiresawillingnesstoassumelong-termriskandstrongfinancialmanagementtopermitmakingmajorinvestmentsthatmaynotpayofffor10years.Thisisparticularlytruewhenentering areas that are populated by the marginalized poor and that lack the basicinfrastructure, educated work force, communications, and reliable business suppliersnecessarytoservethecompany’smanufacturingorrawmaterialneeds.Second,itrequiresanunderstandingofwhatwillbenefitsociety inthe longterm,andwherethosepotentialbenefitsintersectwithacompany’sbusinessinterests.Third,itrequiresaplanningprocessandmindset that translates the interestsof shareholdersand the interestsof society intoconcretebusinessplans.Fourth,thisapproachrequirespatienceandpersistencealignedtoa commonvalue set and continuity inpersonnel, aswell asnotbeingdependenton thatsignificant segment of the investor community that only pursues short-term results (forexampleNestléS.A.refusestobe listedonanystockexchangethatrequiresreportingofquarterlyresults).”The company adopted amulti-pronged approach through theirMilk Collection and DairyDevelopment(MCDD)programmewheretheyestablishedmilkcollectioncentresinvillages,provided training, assistance and advice, and various inputs to farmers to improve farmpractices, and upgrade the quality of herds, to improve the quantity and quality ofmilkproduction on small farms.11They have also helped to increase the supply better animalfeed,bothdirectly (forexample,bydemonstratinghowtomakesilages)and indirectlybyworkingwith feedsuppliers.According tocompanysources, in2014, theyalsodevelopedthecapacityof27animalfeedmanufacturersinPunjabtoproducecosteffective,nutritiousandcompliantcattle-feedsolutionsintheshapeoffeedconcentrateandcottonseedpellets;in2014,morethan540,000suchfeedbagsweredeliveredtofarmers.Fromagenderperspective,amajoraspectofNestle’sCSVprogramwastheinvolvementofwomen.Thisstrategyoftargetingruralwomen–whohavebeentraditionallybypassed inmuch agricultural extension and development activities – and actively implementingmeasurestointegratethemintotheirsupplychainwasbasedontheabovementionedlongterm planning perspective. Nestle recognised that involving women was crucial to thesuccess of the programme because women play an instrumental role in managing smallanimalherds,accountingforaround84percentoflabourinputs.AsChristiansen(2014:362)noted,“Whileitisalmostalwaysthewomenthattakecareofthedairycattle,theydonothaveaccesstoknowledgeaboutanimalhusbandryduetoculturalbarriers,asnearlyalloftheveterinariansaremen”.

11See,https://www.nestle.pk/csv/ruraldevelopment/milk-collection-dairy-development.

17

Toaddressthisissue,Nestlelaunchedaprogrammetotrainfemalelivestockworkerswiththeaimofdevelopingwomenwhopossessedskillsinanimalhusbandryanddairyfarming,andwho could return to their villages and share their expertisewith other localwomen.They are given basic training in livestock management and provided with instructionalmaterials and a veterinary kit to use in their villages that includes medical instruments,medicines and vaccines. A woman veterinarian heads this training program and herknowledgeaboutanimalcareistransferredfirsttothetraineesintheprogram,andthentothevillagewomenwhoreceive(andpayanominalfeefor)theadvicegivenbythetrainees.Throughthisprogramme,over5,000womenhavebeentrainedinbasicanimalhusbandryandlivestockmanagementtoprovideextensionservicesinmorethan3,000villages.12Theyalso serve as a conduit for microfinance efforts, and complement Nestle’s “WomenAgriprenure”initiative. Nestleclaimsthatthisinvestmentintrainingandinvolvingwomenhasbeennotonlycriticaltotheirsuccess inattainingthe improvements inallaspectsofanimalhealthandhygieneandestablishingareliableandstablesupplyofrawmilkfromsmallproducers,buthasalsoled to significant increases in farm incomesandoverallwellbeingofparticipating farmingcommunities.Thustheinvolvementoffemaleshasbeenacalculateddecisionthatfitsintothe corporate profit goals of the company as a component of the CSV strategy, wherebecause it is a “part of a business plan and is tied to the long-term enhancement ofcorporate profit, it will endure over time because its financial support is not tied to thelargesseof thecompany,buttoaself-sustaining financialmodel.Thepotential forscalingup this strategy is therefore also greatly enhanced because it is a part of core businessactivitiesratherthansomethingthatisanadditionalactivitytothemainbusiness.”13Howmuchactualimpactonwomen’ssituation?ThemostimportantlessonfromtheNestleexperienceforenhancingthepositionofwomenwhendevelopingmodernhorticulturalvaluechainsthatseemstocomesthroughisthatthesocio-culturalbarriersthatconstrainruralfemalesinPakistanfromparticipatinginmodernvalue chains can be overcome, at least in certain situations. In the case of dairy, Nestlerecognised the traditionally important role of women in dairy management at thehousehold level, and the necessity to impart skills and knowledge to those women toimprovethequalityandquantityofmilk.Theydevisedastrategythatwassocio-culturallyacceptable to approach andworkwith thosewomen, by employing and training femaleswho could then serve as the company agents in approaching the women in the dairyhouseholdswhodidnotthemselveshavetotraveloutsidetheirhomesorvillages.Nestleclaimsthattheirstrategynotonlyservedtoenhanceproductivityandhelpedthemestablishastablesupplychainformilkforthecompany,butalsoimprovedthepositionofwomeninthehouseholdbecausethewomenwiththeirimprovedskillsandknowledgeandenhanced role in thedairymanagement arenowmoreempowered in generalwithin thehouseholds. Unfortunately no rigorously conducted large scale studies are available tosubstantiate all the claims of positive outcomes that aremade by the company. Further12https://www.nestle.pk/csv/ruraldevelopment/nestl--drdf-dairy-project13Christiansen(2014):356

18

research is needed to understand the overall impact of the Nestle operations on thepositionofwomen inthedairyhouseholds, includingtheextenttowhichfarmingwomenwhohave gained training and skills havebenefitted from thehigher productivity of dairyanimalsandbetterpricesobtainedfromNestlecollectioncentres.Towhatextenthavetheygained direct access to revenues frommilk sales? Has the workload of women gone upbecause of their newly acquired skills? What has been the impact on intra-householddynamics,andthebargainingpowerofwomenwithinthehousehold?Towhatextenthavethey enhanced their capacity to influence household expenditures? Is there any bias inprogramparticipationtowardsricher,largerorbettereducatedhouseholds?14To explore these issues, we undertook a case study to explore the impact of the Nestleprojects in two villages, Chak Marly and Chak 45, in District Pak Pattan, Punjab. Weadopted a mixed approach, combining interviews of a selected sample of households,including both participants of theNestle project andnon-participants (using both a smallstructuredquestionnaireandseveralopenendedquestionsdesignedtopromptdiscussion)aswellas intensivediscussionswithkeyinformants, includingmanywomen.Wesurveyed50non-Nestleparticipanthouseholdsand42Nestleparticipantsintotal,ofwhom50%werefemales. Neither the sample size nor the method of selection of the village or theintervieweespermitsanyvalidgeneralisationsofourobservations.Thevillage,whileitcanbeconsideredafairlytypicalvillage,waschosenprimarilybecauseofoneofus(Afzal)hadgoodcontactsinthevillage,sothatculturallysensitivequestions(suchasthoseondecisionmakingwithin thehousehold) couldbeaskedwith theexpectationofeliciting reasonablyreliableresponses.ThesmallernumberofNestleparticipanthouseholdsreflectedthefactthatonlyaminorityofhouseholdsinthevillageswereparticipantsanditwasnotpossibletogetalargersamplewithresponsiverespondents.15TheresultssummarisedintheTables1-10intheAppendixsuggestthatNestleparticipantscamefromlargelyfrombettereducatedhouseholds,withhigherincomes,largerherdsandmilk volumes. (Note thatwe do not report statistical tests of significance for differencesbecausetheywouldhavenovaliditygiventhesampleselectionmethod.)In terms of gender roles, there appeared to be no significant differences between participants and non-participants in terms market transactions. In both cases it was males who mostly bought and sold cattle, while females did most of work in finding fodder, cleaning sheds, and doing the milking (with some involvement of servants in the higher income households). The one significant difference was that females in participant households had a bigger role in animal health, consistent with females having had training in animal health through Nestle.

14Thoughwewererestrictedtoacasestudyoftwovillages,giventhebudgetandtimeconstraints,webelievethatthesearefairlytypicalofmanyvillageswhereNestleoperates,andthattheseresultsgiveareasonablygeneralpicture.15Oftensurveysarecarefullydesigned,samplesselectedwithstatisticallyacceptedcriteria,detailedquestionnaires are developed asking culturally sensitive questions, and responses recorded,analysed,andreported,andgeneralconclusionsaredrawn.Unfortunately theresponsesobtainedhaveonlyspuriousaccuracy;oftentheycanbedownrightmisleading.

19

This may have some impact on the role of women in household decision making; thoughinthe response to question ofwhomakes decisions in the household, a smaller proportionamong participants stated that only a female makes the decision, in such households amuch larger proportion said that ‘both’ males and females jointly make the decisions.Takingintoaccountthefactthatwhenfemaleshaveamoreimportantrolerespondentsaremore likely to say ‘both’ (rather than ‘females alone’ because of cultural norms,we leantowards concluding that females have a bigger role in participant households. This isencouraginginthattheskillenhancementofwomenwhogettraininginanimalhealthmaysubtlychangetheintra-householdrelationshipsenablingthewomentoexerciseastrongerroleindecisionmaking.Conclusions

Integrating rural producers intomodern value chains toenhanceproductivity, andlinkingthemtodistantmarketsanddeliverbetterqualityproductsisapotentialavenueforimproving the conditions of rural women. Well-designed market reforms can facilitateimprovedpricetransmissionand incentivisemodernfirmsto invest indirect linkstosmallproducers.

Manyfactorsinfluencethedistributionofbenefitsincludingaccesstoresources,skills,andknowledge. International experience shows that rural females gain most through labourmarket (employment) effects that are large when modern value chains generate largeincreases in production and processing. Typically this happens when modernised valuechains enable penetration of large external markets (i.e. export markets) and/or thoughexpandingdomesticmarketsassociatedwithincreasingincomeandurbanisation.Theyalsocontribute to expansion ofmarkets for quality differentiated (and also oftenmore highlyprocessed)products.

ThisisamajoropportunitybutalsoabigchallengeinPakistan,wherefemalesmakealargecontribution,particularly intermsoftheir labour, intomostagriculture industries. Indeed,accordingtothePakistanEconomicSurvey2018-19,morethantwothirdsofthewomeninthe formal labour force are employed in agriculture. But they confront socio-culturalbarriersthatcontinuetosignificantlyconstraintheiraccesstoresources,educationandskillacquisition,markets,andoccupationalmobility.Evenwhenamoderncorporationreachesouttoinvolvewomeninamodernvaluechain,femaleparticipationisrestrictedtospecifictasksand theirdirectaccess tomarketingand incomesarequite restricted.This is clearlyshown in the case study data from the diary sector, though (encouragingly) there is asuggestionfromourstudythatfemalesbecomemoreempoweredastheyacquiregreaterfarmingskills.As in the dairy sector, there is almost no involvement of females in the post-farm valuechain of any of themain agricultural or horticultural crops. But ifmarket reforms attractmodernvaluechainsthatplaceastrongpremiumonquality,andrequireimprovedon-farmprocessing (e.g. improvements in chilli drying methods), innovative firms may see thepotentialforgreaterprofitsfromgreaterinvolvementofwomen.Theywillseethebenefitsof providing them with knowledge, skills and inputs. But modern processing requiringfactory-based activities will find it hard to tap the rural female labour pool in theforeseeablefuture.

20

Thoughsocio-culturalnormsarechanginginPakistan,includinginruralareas,theycannotbe changed quickly or easily through changes in policies and regulatory reforms alone.Policiestoimprovethepositionofruralwomen,includingpolicyandinstitutionalreformsinhorticulturalmarkets,must take intoaccount thissocio-cultural reality. In the foreseeablefuture,females’accesstocashrevenuesthroughmarkettransactionsinvolving‘outsiders’islikelyremainrestricted.Theirabilitytoworkinfactorysettingswillalsobelimited,therebylowering the capacity for Pakistan to exploit its competitive strengths in horticulturalproduction. This will remain an obstacle to the development of modern, dynamic,horticultural industries that can supply thegrowingconsumerdemandsathomeandalsopenetratethehighvalueexportmarkets.But theNestledairyprojectexperiencesuggests thatprivate firmscan involvemore ruralfemales inmodern value chains if they implement innovative approaches tailored to thespecific socio-cultural circumstances of Pakistani rural situation. Though a rapidtransformationdoesnotseemlikely,experienceinothercountriessuchasBangladeshandIndonesia suggest that change is possiblewheneconomic incentives are enhanced. Everysmall step towards greater female involvement will be a positive step towardsmodernisation anddevelopmentof thehorticultural sector, andmorebroadly, the entireruralsector.

21

References

Ahmad, Nuzhat, Madeeha Hameed, Huma Khan, and Sara Rafi (2016), “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Rural Pakistan”, in Spielman, David J. and Sohail J. Maliak, Paul Dorosh and Nuzhat Ahmad (eds.), Agriculture and the Rural Economy in Pakistan: Issues, outlooks, and Policy Priorities, International Food Policy research Institute (IFPRI), University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2016), “Policy brief on Female Labor Force Participation in Pakistan”, Policy Brief No.70, October 2016, ADB, Manila

Aslam, Monazza (2009), “Education Gender Gaps in Pakistan: is the labor Market to Blame?”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 57(4): 747-784

Aslam, Nauman (2012), Enhancing Dairy Sector Export Competitiveness in Pakistan, Trade Related Assistance Programme - International Trade Centre: http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracen.org/Content/About_ITC/Press/Articles/Dairy.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018)

Balagamwala, Mysbah, Haris Gazdar and Hussain Bux Mallah (2015), “Women’s Agricultural Work and Nutrition in Pakistan: Findings from Qualitative Research” LANSA Working Paper Series, Volume 2015 No 02

Bari, Farzana (2000), “Women in Pakistan”, Country Briefing Paper, Asian Development Bank, Manila

Barrientos, S., C. Dolan, and A. Tallontire (2003) “A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture”. World Development, 31(9), pp. 1511–1526.

Barrientos, S., C. Dolan, C. and A. Tallontire (2003), “A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture”, World Development, 31(9), pp. 1511–1526.

Batool, Zahira and Farhana Nosheen (2015), “Women in Agriculture in Punjab”, in Women in Agriculture in Pakistan, FAO, Islamabad: 100-117

Christiansen, Niels (2014), “Business Initiatives That Overcome Rural Poverty and Marginality Through Creating Shared Value”, in von Braun, Joachim. and Fzran.W. Gatzweiler (eds.), Marginality: Addressing the Nexus 353 of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology, Springer (DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7061-4_21): 353-364

Concepcion, S.B., Digal, L.N.and Uy, J.C. 2007. The case of NorminVeggies of Northern Mindanao, Philippines.In Batt, P.J. and Cadilhon, J-J. (ed) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fresh Produce Supply Chain Management. RAP Publication 2007/21: 229-239

Concepcion, S.D., Digal, L. & Uy, J. 2007. Innovative practice Philippines: The case of NorminVeggies in the Philippines. Regoverning Markets Innovative Practice series.,

22

International Institute for Environment and Development ,London, (available at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G03259.pdf).

Dolan, C. 2001. The good wife’s struggle over resources in the Kenyan horticulture sector. Journal of Development Studies, 37(3): 39–70

Fafchamps, Marcel and Agnes R. Quisumbing (2003), "Social roles, human capital, and the intrahousehold division of labor: evidence from Pakistan," Oxford Economic Papers, 55(1): 36-80

Fafchamps, Marcel and Agnes R. Quisumbing, 2003. "Social roles, human capital, and the intrahousehold division of labor: evidence from Pakistan," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(1): 36-80

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011), Dairy Development in Pakistan by Umm e Zia, T. Mahmood and M.R. Ali, FAO, Rome

Government of Pakistan (2016), Pakistan Economic Survey 2015-16, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad

Guijit, Irene and Edith van Walsum (2008), “Balancing Business and Empowerment in Fair fruit Chains: the experience of Solidaridad”, In Fair Trade and the Food Chain, ed. Cathy Rozel Farnworth, Janice Jiggins, and Emyr Vaughan Thomas. London: Gower. : 81-95

Guijt, Irene and Edith van Walsum (2008), “Balancing Business and empowerment in Fair Fruit Chains: the experience of solidaridad in Farnworth, Cathy Rozel, Janice Higgins and Emyr Vaughan Thomas (eds.) Creating Food Futurestrade, ethics and the environment, Gower

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2015), Pakistan: Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 16/2, IMF, Washington, D.C.

Jamali, Khalida and Imdad Ali Khowaja (2015), “Women in Agriculture in Punjab”, in Women in Agriculture in Pakistan, FAO, Islamabad: 120-133

Jejeebhoy, Shireen J., and Zeba Sathar (2001) “Women’s Autonomy in India and Pakistan: The Influence of Religion and Region”, Population and Development Review, 27:687-712

Kabeer, Naila (2012), Women’s Economic Empowerment and Inclusive Growth: Labour Markets and Enterprise Development, SIG Working Paper 2012/1. IDRC, Ottawa

Kimenye, L. (2005) Promoting farm/nonfarm linkages: a case study of French bean processing in Kenya, in: B. Davis, T.

Maertens, Miet & Johan F.M. Swinnen (2012), “Gender and Modern Supply Chains in Developing Countries,” Journal of Development Studies, 48:10, 1412-1430

Maertens, M. and J. Swinnen (2009), “ Trade, standards and poverty: evidence from Senegal”, World Development, 37(1), pp. 161–178.

23

Maertens, Miet and Johan F. M. Swinnen (2012), “Gender and Modern Value chains in Developing Countries”, Journal of Development Studies,48 (10):1412–1430

Makino, Momoe (2017), “Dowry and Female Labor Force Participation in Pakistan”, www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Publish/Download/Report/2016/pdf/B16_ch02.pdf

Malik, H.A. and M. Luijkx,, (2004), Agribusiness Development Project TA. No. PAK 4058. Interim Report, Asian Development Bank, Pakistan

Mangan, Tehmina and Ummul Ruthbah (2018), “Preliminary Report on the Growers’ and Marketing Channel Surveys (Chilli) in Sindh”, Draft Report N0.1, Policy and Institutional Reforms to Improve Horticultural Markets in Pakistan (ADP/2014/043), entre for Development Economics and sustainability, Monash University

Minten, B., L. Randrianarison, L. and J. Swinnen (2009) “Global retail chains and poor farmers: evidence from Madagascar,” World Development, 7(11), pp. 1728–1741.

Minten, B., Randrianarison, L. and Swinnen, J. (2009) Global retail chains and poor farmers: evidence from Madagascar, World Development, 7(11), pp. 1728–1741.

Mirza, Jasmin (1999), Accommodating Purdah to the workplace: Gender Relations in the office Sector in Pakistan, The Pakistan Development Review, 38(2): 187—206

Obermeyer, Carla Makhlouf (1992), “Islam, women, and politics: The demography of Arab countries,” Population and Development Review, 18(1): 33–60

Porter, Michael E. and Mark R. Kramer (2011), “Creating Shared Value”, Harvard Business Review: Jan-Feb 2011:

Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. "Creating Shared Value." Harvard Business Review 89, nos. 1-2 (January–February 2011): 62–77

Reardon, K. Stamoulis and P. Winters (ed.), Promoting Farm/Non-Farm Linkages for Rural Development, FAO, Rome

Reardon, Thomas (2015), “The hidden middle: the quiet revolution in the midstream of agrifood value chains in developing countries”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 31(1): 45-63

Reardon, Thomas (2015), “The hidden middle: the quiet revolution in the midstream of agrifood value chains in developing countries”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 31(1): 45–63

Reardon, Thomas, Kostas Stamoulis, and Prabhu Pingali (2007), “Rural nonfarm employment in developing countries in an era of globalization”, Agricultural Economics, 17(1): 173-183

Schuster, M., Maertens, M. (2016) Do private standards benefit workers in horticultural export chains in Peru? Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (4): 2392-240.

24

Siegmann, K. A., and Shaheen, N. (2008), ‘Weakest link in the Textile Chain: Pakistani Cotton Pickers' Bitter Harvest’, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 51.4: 619-630

Siegmann, Karin Astrid and Nazima Shaheen (2008), “Weakest Link in the Textile Chain: Pakistani cotton Pickers’ Bitter Harvest”, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 51(4): 619-630

Staelens, Lotte, Sam Desiere, Céline Louche & Marijke D’Haese (2016) Predicting job satisfaction and workers’ intentions to leave at the bottom of the high value agricultural chain: evidence from the Ethiopian cut flower industry, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1253032

United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) (2019), Human Development Report 2019, UNDP, New York

World Economic Forum (2020), Global Gender Gap Report 2020, Gneva, Switzerland

Zaidi Y., S. Farooq S. et al. (2016), Women’s Economic Participation and Empowerment in Pakistan - Status Report 2016, UN Women Pakistan, Islamabad

25

Appendix

NestleparticipantsvsNon-Participants:resultsfromsamplesurvey

1. Education

Table 1.1: Respondent’s Education

Non-Participants Nestle

Participants

No of Househo

lds %

No of Household

s

%

Illiterate 25 50.0 18 42.9

Primary 8 16.0 0 0

Middle 10 20.0 3 7.1

Metric 5 10.0 6 14.3

Graduation 2 4.0 15 35.7

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table1.2:Household Head education

Non-

Participants

Nestle

Participants

No of Househ

olds

% No of

Households

%

Primary/Illiterate 38 76.0 15 35.7

Middle 5 10.0 9 21.4

Metric 5 10.0 6 14.3

26

Graduation 1 2.0 12 28.6

Total 50 100.

0 42 100.0

-----------------------------------------

Table 2: Household income ( PKR per month)

Non-Participants Nestle

Participants

Income No of Househ

olds %

No of Househ

olds %

<10000 26 52.0 9 21.4

10000-

25000 17 34.0

18 42.9

25001-

50000 4 8.0

9 21.4

50001-

100000 1 2.0

3 7.1

>100,000 2 4.0 3 7.1

Total 50 100.0 42 100

------------------------------------------------------

Table 3: Revenue from milk sales (PKR per month)

Non-Participants Nestle

Participants

Income No of Households % No of

Households %

27

<10000 13 26.0 0 0

10000-

25000 19 38.0 4 9.5

25001-

50000 14 28.0 18 42.9

51001-

100000 2 4.0 18 42.9

>100000 2 4.0 2 4.7

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table 3: Size of Herd

Non-Participants Nestle Participants

Number % No of Households

% No of Households

1-3 27 54.0 3 7.1

4-8 15 30.0 24 57.1

9-15 4 8.0 3 7.1

16-30 4 8.0 9 21.4

>30 0 0 3 7.1

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table 4: Number of Active milk animals

28

Non-Nestle Nestle

Number Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

1-3 32 64.0 12 28.6

4-8 13 26.0 18 42.9

9-15 3 6.0 6 14.3

16-30 2 4.0 2 4.7

>30 0 0 4 9.5

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

29

Table 5: Daily milk production (Litres)

Non-Participants Nestle Participants

Litres % No of

Households % No of

Households 1-10 14 28.0 0 0

11-20 22 44.0 6 14.3

21-40 9 18.0 12 28.6

41-60 3 6.0 12 28.6

61-100 2 4.0 3 7.1

>100 9 21.4

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table 6: Daily milk sales (litres)

Non-Participants Nestle Participants

Liters No of Households

% No of Households

%

1-10 12 24.0 3 7.1

11-20 24 48.0 3 7.1

21-40 9 18.0 15 35.7

41-60 3 6.0 9 21.4

61-100 2 4.0 3 7.1

>100 0 0 9 21.4

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

30

Gender roles

Table 7: Who buys and sells farm animals

Non-Participants Nestle Participants

Gender No of Households

% No of Households

%

Female 16 32.0 12 28.6

Male 32 64.0 30 71.4

Both 2 4.0 0 0.0

Total 50 100.0 0 0.0

Table 8: Who finds fodder for animals

Non-Participants Nestle Participants

Gender No of Households

% Gender No of

Households Female 25 50.0 21 50.0

Male 11 22.0 6 14.3

Both 11 22.0 9 21.4

Servants 3 6.0 6 14.3

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

31

Table 9: Who cleans the animal sheds

Non-Participants Nestle

Participants

Gender No of

Households

%

Gende

r

No of Household

s Female 42 84.0 33 78.6

Male 1 2.0 3 7.1

Both 4 8.0 0 0.0

Servants 3 6.0 6 14.3

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table 10: Who looks after animal health

Non-Participants

Nestle Participants

Gender No of Households % Gender No of

Households Female 11 22.0 21 50.0

Male 30 60.0 15 35.7

Both 8 16.0 3 7.1

Servants 1 2.0 3 7.1

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

32

Table 11: Who does the milking?

Non-Participants

Nestle Participants

Gender No of Households % No of

Households %

Female 36 72.0 24 57.1

Male 8 16.0 6 14.3

Both 3 6.0 6 14.3

Servants 3 6.0 6 14.3

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0

Table 12: Who makes household spending decisions

Non-Participants

Nestle Participants

Gender No of Households % No of

Households %

Female 19 38.0 12 28.6

Male 30 60.0 18 42.9

Both 1 2.0 12 28.6

Total 50 100.0 42 100.0