FROM RISK TO RESILIENCE
How do female farmers adapt to
climate variability through
associations and agroecology in
peri-urban agriculture ?
Ouagadougou - Burkina Faso
MSc. International Development
January, 2017
Marina HUMBLOT - 11112565
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Nicky R.M. Pouw
From risk to resilience
How do female farmers adapt to climate variability through associations and
agroecological farming in peri-urban agriculture in Ouagadougou ?
Student
Marina Humblot (11112565)
University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc. International Development Studies
Email: marina.humblot@student.uva.nl
Supervisor
Dr. Nicky R.M. Pouw
Associate Professor, Research Master International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences
University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 1018 VZ Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)20-5254105 E-mail: n.r.m.pouw@uva.nl Second Assessor
Dr. Maarten J.M. Bavinck
Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 1018 VZ Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)20-5254185 Email: J.M.Bavinck@uva.nl
Remerciements
Au Burkina Faso, « pays des hommes intègres », j’ai rencontré des gens formidables, généreux et très engagés. Des tresses jusqu’au pagne, vous m’avez intégré comme l’une de vos filles. Née dans les Alpes, où les glaciers sont aujourd’hui menacés, je suis très sensible aux problématiques du réchauffement climatique. Vos témoignages unanimes et saisissants sur l’urgence de s’adapter m’ont touchée. Merci d’avoir partagé avec moi cet amour inconditionnel pour l’environnement. Vous m’avez montré que la vie à Ouagadougou, malgré toutes ces difficultés, était extrêmement animée, humaine et solidaire. À tous mes collègues et amis au Burkina, je vous promets de revenir.
Un merci particulier à Janvier Kini et Yaya Savadogo qui m’ont ouvert les portes de leur centre de recherche et offert un soutien logistique et amical essentiel. Merci à mon traducteur et ami Arouna qui, apprécié des groupements féminins, a su poser les bonnes questions et m’aider à approfondir mes recherches. Merci pour nos conversations passionnantes sur la politique internationale et les liens France-Afrique. Merci à Jean-Paul et Paulin pour votre hospitalité et ces conversations nocturnes sur Thomas Sankara et son héritage révolutionnaire.
Merci à Mme. Sedgho, à Mme. Sankara et à Mr. Korogo, ainsi qu’aux autres dirigeants et membres des différentes associations pour l’opportunité de rencontre. J’emporte avec moi vos convictions sur l’agroécologie et vous promets de travailler dans ce sens-là dans un futur proche.
Je remercie tout particulièrement mes parents et mes frères pour leur soutien inconditionnel dans ma quête de justice. Grâce à vous, et à toutes ces heures passées en montagne, j’ai cultivé une sensibilité qui me permet aujourd’hui de me sentir si proche des gens, sur tous les continents. Merci de ne jamais m’avoir éloigné de ma plus grande source d’inspiration et de bonheur, la nature. Un merci tout particulier à ma grand-mère qui m’a accueilli chez elle, pour que la rédaction de la thèse soit aussi un moment de partage.
Jorge, merci de m’avoir toujours encouragé à vivre mes passions. Tes connaissances sur le changement climatique, mêlés de conseils bienveillants, ont très certainement enrichis ce travail. Merci d’avoir été à mes côtés dans les moments difficiles. Ensemble, et pour les populations les plus vulnérables, on écrira certainement un très beau chapitre quant à l’adaptation aux changements climatiques.
Je porte une attention toute particulière à Mrs. Nicky Pouw, qui a su critiquer mon travail de manière très constructive tout en m’encourageant, cernant ainsi très bien ma personnalité. Merci aussi d’avoir reconnu et apprécié mes apports personnels de créativité.
Ce travail est le fruit d’une année d’étude très enrichissante à l’université d’Amsterdam. Ce fut un plaisir immense de côtoyer des globetrotteurs inspirants qui souhaitent désormais donner du sens à leurs actions. Optimistes, réalistes avec une petite dose d’idéalisme, passionnés et indécemment altruistes. Au plaisir de vous voir sur le terrain.
Acknowledgments
In the « Country of Honest Men », I met wonderful, generous, and very committed people. From the braids to the pagne, you welcomed and integrated me as one of your daughters. Born in the Alps, where glaciers are threatened by global warming, I am aware and concerned by climate related issues. I was touched by your records on climate variability and the urgent necessity to adapt. Thank you for sharing this unconditional love for the environment with me and for showing me that life in Ouagadougou, despite its difficulties, is extremely lively, captivating and pleasant. To all my friends and colleagues in Burkina Faso, I promise I will come back.
A very special thanks to Janvier Kini and Yaya Savadogo who welcomed me in their research centre, offered a great logistical support and became friend. I would like to extent a warm thanks to my translator and good friend, Arouna. Very appreciated by women’s groups, you were able to ask relevant questions and helped me greatly with the research. Thank you for these nourishing conversations on international relations and traditional ties between France and Africa. Thank you to Jean-Paul and Paulin, for their hearty welcome and these late-night conversations on Thomas Sankara and his revolutionary legacy.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Mrs. Sedgho, Mrs. Sankara, Mr. Korogo, and other Presidents of associations, for these opportunities to meet and discuss. I carry your convictions on agroecological practices with me, and I promise I will work in this direction in the near future.
My special thanks go to my parents and my brothers. Encouraging and trusting, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your genuine emotional support in my pursuit of justice. Thank your for all these hours spent hiking in the mountains, I developed a passion and sensitiveness that makes me feel close to the people I work with, regardless of the continent. Thank you for always keeping me close to my greatest source of inspiration and happiness: nature.
Jorge, thank you for encouraging me to follow my passions. Your knowledge on climate change, combined with caring guidance, certainly enriched this thesis. Thank you for being by my side in the hardest moments. Together, and for vulnerable populations, we will certainly write a beautiful chapter with respect to climate change adaption.
I am particularly grateful to Mrs. Nicky Pouw who provided constructive criticism while also encouraging me to structure my thoughts and further reason. I believe you had a good understanding of my personality, and I thank you very much for recognizing and valuing my creative inputs as well.
The thesis is the outcome of a very enriching year of study at the University of Amsterdam. It has been a pleasure working with inspiring globetrotters like my friends from the Master. I was pleased to work and spend time with optimistic, realistic but also slightly idealist, passionate and immodestly altruistic people. See you somewhere on the field.
Abstract
In recent years, it has been increasingly recognized that climate change is a threatening reality, urging every country to adapt to its devastating effects on agriculture, especially in the most vulnerable countries like Burkina Faso, where 80% of the people live on agriculture. Traditionally, women haven’t been included in environmental policies, and yet they play a crucial role in market gardening. Their degree of vulnerability requires in-depth, context-specific studies, considering women as agents of change. Through agroecological practices and grouping, female farmers of Ouagadougou are building unprecedented resilience in the face of the climate variability they perceived on the field.
Drawing on a qualitative fieldwork research during the rainy season in 2016, this study builds upon the accounts of the farmers and key actors interviewed. Moving from risk to resilience, the research assesses how female farmers adapt to climate variability with associations and agroecological farming in peri-urban agriculture in Ouagadougou.
Research methods are a combination of qualitative methods as the main objective is to report about personal perceptions of the reality of climate change, women’s impressions and personal experiences. Nevertheless, some quantitative surveys corroborated the findings, as they were used a first step to identify women’s understanding of climate variability before delving into the impacts on their livelihoods.
The majority of farmers acknowledge that climate change is an indisputable reality in Burkina Faso, flooding being an indicative of its devastating effects. Marked by Pierre Rabhi’s teachings, and Thomas Sankara’s fight for food sovereignty, female farmers and social leaders have abundant ingenious solutions and adaptation strategies, based on endogenous knowledge.
In this paper, it is argued that female farmers should be encouraged to form groups in order to tackle vulnerability. Government’s entities and supporting structures should work in line with the pressing challenges of sustainable production systems posed by climate stresses. Truly participatory processes and transformative training need to be implemented now, to adapt but also to adopt a more holistic and ecological approach. Agroecology proved to be a sustainable solution empowering female farmers and providing organic food for all. Its practices need to be implemented at a larger scale.
Key Words : Climate Variability – Vulnerability – Adaptation strategies – farmers’ perceptions – Resilience –
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abstract
Chapter 1 Introduction.………..…………. 1
Chapter 2 Theoretical Framework………..…………. 3
2.1. Concepts & Theoretical Background of the research……….. 3
2.1.1 Climate Variability 4 2.1.2 Farmers’ perceptions of Climate Variability 4 2.1.3 Vulnerability - Risk 5 2.1.4 Adaptation strategies 6 2.1.5 Resilience 7 2.1.6 Community-based action (Female Associations) 7
2.1.7 Urban and Peri-Urban agriculture (UPA) 8 2.1.8 Agroecology 9 2.2. Framework……… 11
Chapter 3 Research Design………. 15
3.1. Research Questions ……….…. 15
3.2. Conceptual Scheme ……….…. 16
3.3. Research methods ……….….. 17
3.4. Mixed Methods ……….…… 18
3.4.1. Observations – Visits on the field 18 3.4.2. Stepping into female farmers’ shoes 18 3.4.3. Literature Review 19 3.4.4. Semi-conducted interviews 19 3.4.5. Conversational Interviews 20 3.4.6. Surveys 20 3.4.7. Focus Groups 21 3.4.8. Participatory methods 22
3.4.9. Secondary Data Analysis 23 3.4.10. Distribution of research, by site and research methods 24 3.5. Research Design Map ……….… 25
3.6 Data Analysis ……….. 25
3.7 Ethical considerations ……….… 26
3.8. Challenges and limitations ……….…. 26
3.8.1. Communication 26
3.8.2. Focus Groups Vs. Group Interviews 26 3.8.3. Presence of Men 27 3.8.4. A challenging setting 27
Chapter 4 Empirical Context……….…… 29
4.1. Socio-economic Characteristics ………..…….… 29
4.1.1. Demography 29 4.1.2. Poverty 29
4.1.3 Economic activity 30 4.1.4 Urbanisation 31 4.2. Geography, Climate and Climate change in Burkina Faso ……… 31
4.2.1. Geography, Climate and Climate change 32 4.2.2. Rainfall 33
4.2.3. Temperatures and evapotranspiration 34
4.2.4. Extreme Weather events 35 4.2.5. Burkina Faso, among the most vulnerable countries 35 4.3. Political Characteristics ………..……….. 36
4.3.1. Instability 36
4.3.2. Thomas Sankara’s legacy 36
4.3.3. NPA and environmental policies 36
4.4. Women in Burkina Faso ………..………. 37
4.4.1 Vulnerability 37 4.4.2. Vulnerability to Climate change 37
4.5. Urban Agriculture …………..……….. 38
4.6. Agroecology in Burkina Faso ……….……….. 39
4.6.1. Pierre Rabhi and Thomas Sankara 39 4.6.2 Agroecology nowadays 39
4.7. Research Locations………….……….. 41
Chapter 5 Vulnerability in the face of climate change………. 45
5.1. Perceptions of Climate Variability ……… 45
5.1.1. An indisputable and well-known reality 45
5.1.2. Consensus among farmers’ perceptions 45
5.1.3. Expressed concerns about the future 49 5.2. Vulnerability ……….……… 51
5.2.1. Vulnerability due to changing pluviometry 51 5.2.2. Vulnerability due to a rise in temperatures 53 5.2.3. Other weather-related vulnerabilities 53 5.2.4. Poverty 54
Chapter 6 Grouping and agroecology as adaptation strategies……… 57
6.1. Advantages of Associations ……… 57
6.1.1. Funding 58
6.1.2. Training 59
6.1.3. Solidarity 61 6.1.4. Women empowerment 62
6.1.5. Perspectives for the futur 63 6.2. Agroecology ……… 64
6.2.1. Indigenous knowledge and know-how ………. 64
6.2.2. Agroecology as a way to adapt to climate change ………. 67
1. Compost 68 2. Biological pesticides 69 3. Butte Sandwich (Sandwich Mound) 69
4. Goutte à Goutte (Dripping systems) 70
5. Paillage (Straw-mulching) 70 6. Bricks 71 7. Crop rotation 71 8. Adapted seed and seed production 72
9. Off-ground cultivations 72 10. Drills and solar panels 74 11. Agroforestry 75 6.2.3. Environmental awareness……… 76
Chapter 7 Conclusions & discussions……….. 79
7.1. Main findings, revisiting the research question……….……….. 79
7.2. Conceptual & methodological reflections ……….……….……… 81
7.3. Practice & Policy recommendations ….……….……… 82
7.4. Limitations to the research ….……….……….. 84
7.5. Research Agenda .……….……… 84
Bibliography………..……….………..
85LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Links between concepts 3
Figure 2 Theoretical Framework 7
Figure 3 Conceptual Map 15
Figure 4 Research Design Map 23
Figure 5 Average annual rainfall evolution in Sahelian countries (1950 to 2005) 32
Figure 6 Farmers perceptions on precipitations 44
Figure 7 Adaptation Strategies identified in discourses, focus groups and interviews 63
Figure 8 Conceptual Map based on findings 76
Table 1 Distribution of research, by site and research methods 23
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1 Compost 64
Diagram 2 Sandwich Mound 65
Diagram 3 Dripping System 66
Diagram 4 Straw-mulching 66
Diagram 5 Bricks 67
Diagram 6 Crop Rotation 67
Diagram 7 Sacks 69
Diagram 8 Tables 70
Diagram 9 Drills and Solar Panels 71
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 Geographic Location of Burkina Faso 30
Map 2 Climatic Zones of Burkina Faso 30
Map 3 Urban Agriculture in Ouagadougou 36
Map 4 Research Locations 39
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1 Stepping into female farmer’s shoes 17
Picture 2 Surveys 20
Picture 3 Focus Groups 20
Picture 4 Hazard Mapping 21
Picture 5 Seasonal Calendar 21
Picture 6 Economic activity - agricultural sector 28
Picture 7 Rudimentary tools 28
Picture 8 Rainfall, Flooding and Damages 31
Picture 9 Destructive effects - Heavy rains - Rainy Season 33
Picture 10 Meeting of Pierre Rabhi and Thomas Sankara in 1986 37
Picture 11 SNG Certification 37
Picture 12 Protests against Monsanto and Cotton BT in Ouagadougou 38
Picture 13 Vulnerability Matrix 49
Picture 14 Destructive effects of heavy rainfall in La Saisonnière 49
Picture 15 Eggplant leaves damaged by insects 50
Picture 16 International financial partners 55
Picture 17 Off-Ground Technique in a Tire 56
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFDB African Development Bank Group
APAF Association de promotion des Arbres Fertilitaires (Association for Promotion of Fertilizer Trees)
AVAPAS Association pour la Vulgarisation et l'Appui aux Producteurs Agroécologistes (Association for Popularization and Support for Agroecological Farmers)
CBA Community-Based Adaptation
CNAbio Conseil National de l’Agriculture Biologique (National Council of Organic Agriculture)
CNSF Centre National des Semences Forestières (National Center of Forest Seeds)
DREF Disaster Relief Emergency Fund
DGM Direction Générale de la Météorologie (National Directorate of Meteorology)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HDI Human Development Index
IAGU Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine
(African Institute of Urban Management)
IFPRI International Food policy Research Institute
INSD Institut national de la Statistique et de la Démographie (National Institute of Statistics and Demography)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LAME Laboratoire d’Analyses Mathématiques des Équations
(Mathematics of Equations Laboratory)
MEDD Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable
(Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development)
MERH Ministère de l’Environnement et des Ressources Halieutiques (Ministry of Environment and Fishing Resources)
MHU Ministère de l’Habitat et de l’Urbanisme (Ministry of Housing and Urbanism)
MINEFID Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et du Développement
(Ministry of Economy, Finance and Development)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPA National Plan of adaptation
OCHA United Nation Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessments
SL Sustainable Livelihood
SPG Système Participatif de Garanti (Guarantee Participatory System)
UNDISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
UNDP United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
UPA Urban and Peri-Urban agriculture
« The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk about women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph. Women hold up the other half of the sky. » Thomas Sankara (1949 - 1987) Former President of Burkina Faso
March, 8th, 1987 - Ouagadougou
« The Africa which the world needs is a continent able to stand up, to walk on its own feet… it is an Africa conscious of its own past and able to keep on reinvesting this past into its present and future » Joseph Ki-Zerbo (1922 - 2006)
Historian, Politician and Philosopher of Burkina Faso
« To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live, especially in unfavorable environments. » Olivier De Schutter Special Rapporteur at the UN on the right to food
December 20th, 2010 - Geneva
There is increasing evidence that climate change will strongly affect the African continent and will be one of the challenging issues for future development, particularly in the drier regions (Haile, 2005; Huq
et al., 2004; Kurukulasuriya et al. 2006 ; Adger et al., 2007; Mertz et al, 2009),and vulnerability to poor rainfall is the most striking feature of Sahelian countries (Denton, 2010). Burkina Faso is often described as a « vulnerable country very sensitive to climate change » (Gonzalez & Belemvire, 2011). As a matter of fact, most developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate variability because their economies rely mostly on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture (Mendelsohn et al., 2006).
Agriculture provides employment for almost 90% of the population in Burkina Faso (OECD, 2013).
Nevertheless the country is classified as a “food-deficit country” (WFP, 2016).
It is now well acknowledged that climate change impacts farm yields, reducing agricultural income and household food availability, thus threatening the lives of vulnerable communities relying on natural resources to make a living. Agricultural productivity is responsive to two climate-induced effects: the direct effects from the changes in temperature and rainfall, as well as the indirect effects such as changes in soil moisture and distribution, the frequency of pest infestation and disease outbreaks
(Panda et al., 2013). Agricultural activities in Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable to climate change as they rely almost exclusively on rainfall (World Bank, 2015).Vulnerable groups, notably women, will be disproportionally affected by climate change because they rely more on “natural capital” for their daily activities (Gonzalez & Belemvire, 2011). Climate variability is threatening their overall vulnerability, capacity to adapt and ability to meet family commitments, hence the focus of the research on women’s capacity to build resilience, and particularly on group–based approach to adaptation. This research assesses female farmers’ perceptions of climate variability, as well as climate-related impacts on their everyday activities and own prosperity. The study then identifies which adaptation strategies have been put in place in the last decades, at a group or community level. The research focuses on grouping and agroecological practices which are helping women greatly by providing them with the right tools to fight against climate change but also lifting them out of marginalization and poverty. The World Bank has not established the Climate-Smart Agriculture Profile of Burkina Faso yet. Nonetheless, observable practices reflect the « ambition to improve the integration of agriculture development and climate responsiveness » (World Bank, 2016). The following research aims to contribute to the identification of best strategies put in place in urban agriculture in Ouagadougou, in order to achieve food security and broader sustainable development goals, under a changing climate and increasing food demand.
The fieldwork took place in the capital of Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou, to depict the specific case of urban agriculture. A total of nine different sites were visited to evaluate the complexity and the variety of female farmers associations and their particular environmental constraints. A predominantly
Chapter 1
qualitative approach was adopted to capture the voices of those who experience climate variability and to contrast their records with meteorological data, definitions and methodologies from the available literature. A total of 27 surveys corroborates the qualitative data, obtained through focus groups, in-situ and participant observation, interviews and participative methods.
The following dissertation is organized in seven chapters. Following this first introduction chapter, Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework of the research, revealing the definitions of the used concepts but also presenting a unique framework, created of four existing approach to embrace the complexity of women agency, collective action, gender in climate change issues as well as the components of a sustainable livelihood. Chapter 3 discusses the chosen methodology to answer the research questions, also introduced in the same section. Chapter 4 describes the Burkinabé context surrounding every topic or issue explored during this investigation. Chapter 5 dives into the data analysis by giving an account of female farmers’ perceptions of climate variability in Ouagadougou, before disclosing the vulnerabilities arising from these climate-related events. Thereafter, Chapter 6 presents the advantages of collective action in adaptation according to women and then provides a detailed description of the adaptation strategies that have been implemented collectively, fully in line with the agroecological approach. Throughout the project, the potential of agroecology to provide sustainable food production systems the face of climate change is analyzed. Finally, Chapter 7 offers a clear conclusion based on fieldworks results and extensive literature research by answering the main question. A theoretical and methodological reflection, the identified limitations as well as a prospective agenda for further investigations close this thesis.
This chapter provides a research base, a structure that holds the research study based on concepts and frameworks found in the existing scientific literature. The first section 2.1 defines climate variability, farmers’ perceptions, vulnerability, adaptation strategies, community-based actions, urban agriculture, agroecology and resilience as concepts. The section also discusses the historical evolutions of concepts and current discords (if existing) regarding their respective definitions. On the basis of the literature review, and for the purpose of the research, specific definitions were then chosen to investigate in Ouagadougou. Notable links between the different concepts are also deepened in this section. These concepts are building blocks for the theoretical framework presented in 2.2. This section suggests an integrated approach to understand the dynamics of female farmers’ collective adaptation to climate variability in an urban setting.
2.1. CONCEPTS & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
The figure below exposes the links between the different concepts: climate variability, farmers’ perceptions, vulnerability, adaptation strategies, community based actions, urban agriculture, agroecology and resiliences, in accordance with their definition. Although they are explained one by one, they are interconnected and these connections and influences are also explained and deepened for each notion.
Chapter 2
Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Climate Variability
In recent years, the debate on climatic variability has led to a renewed interest in the effects of climatic variability on agriculture (Badolo & Kinda, 2014). From the eighties, the climate change debate has entered public sphere and people have appropriated the topic, it does no longer belong to scientists only (Klein, 2014). The chosen definition of climate variability for this research is the most widely used nowadays in research about farmers’ perceptions of climate change. It defined as the “variations in the mean state and other statistics of the climate on all temporal and spatial scales, beyond individual weather events” by the World Meteorological Organization (2016). In addition, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014), “climate variability refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer”. This definition of variability engages both with natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcings (external variability).
It is widely agreed that climate variability impacts agricultural activities (Kandlikar & Risbey, 2000; Morton, 2007; Denton, 2002; Adger et al., 2003; GIEC, 2007; IFPRI, 2013; FAO, 2013; Niang et al., 2014). From the degradation of the soil, to the disappearance of plants, trees or watering holes, it increasingly threatens the tradition rain-fed agriculture. Nonetheless, further research still needs to be done on how exactly the current climate variability impacts agricultural system and their sustainability
(Stefanski, 2015). Moreover, the impacts of climate variability remain hard to determine precisely as their complexity is specific to location and livelihood systems (Morton, 2007).
This research focuses on climate variability because climate change goes beyond the scope of this study. Farmers operate in a volatile environment where short-term variations in weather, pests and market conditions are more easily observable. A protracted scientific research would be need to evaluate the slower changes in climate and social conditions(Kandlikar & Risbey, 2000). Furthermore, climate variability in Burkina Faso is already noticeable and measurable (See: 4.2), providing this research with a solid basis on adaption strategies.
Climate variability is closely related to vulnerability (2.1.3) (CARE, 2009) and adaptation strategies
(2.1.4) as it significantly affects food production and requires immediate and ongoing adaptation
(Gornall et al., 2010). It is also related to farmers’ perceptions, as the latter perceive and interpret weather related changes before taking actions. Information about climate variability is actually filtered by people’s perceptions and interpretations.
2.1.2 Farmers’ perceptions of Climate Variability
Farmers adapt to climate variability on the basis of “detection of problems and attribution to causes”, so the role of choice and perception are crucial aspects of adaptation studies (Kandlikar & Risbey, 2000). “Adaptation is a two-step process which involves perceiving that climate is changing and then responding to changes through adaptation” (Ndambiri et al., 2013). Authors like Mertz et al. (2008)
highlighted that farmers possess various valuable indigenous adaptation strategies, including early warming systems. Nevertheless, despite the growing recognition of indigenous communities in development studies, the value of their knowledge has received too little attention in climate change adaptation plans (Nyong, 2007). Generally speaking, indigenous local knowledge in climate change studies has received little attention.
Numerous studies regarding farmers’ perceptions of climate change have been produced (Adger et al., 2003; Mertz et al., 2008; Bewket, 2012; Hansen et al., 2012; Zongo et al., 2015; Hyland et al., 2015), yet not much is know about households’ perceptions in Burkina Faso (Sanfo et al., 2014). Few studies
(Adesina, 1995; Ouedraogo, 2010; Sanfo et al., 2014) assessed farmers perceptions in the region. Traditional investigations about new agricultural practices and technologies have not examined subjective perceptions of farmer affecting their adoption decision (Adesina & Baidu-Forson, 1995).
2.1.3 Vulnerability - Risk
Even if the concept of vulnerability seems quite intuitive, it encompasses many dimensions and there are many discrepancies regarding its definition. It has been conceptualized in many ways, depending on the background of the researcher or study area (Füssel, 2007). For Timmerman (1981), vulnerability was a term of such a broad use that it was almost useless. Far-reaching and broad concept can be also found in Livermann’s 1990 work where the use of an extensive number of adjectives (susceptibility, marginality, resilience etc.) highlighted the lack of agreement between different authors. The literature gives many definitions, from mesures of physical exposure, of socio-economic status regarding access to resources, and of the ability of groups to resist harm and to recover afterwards (UNEP, 2003). To clarify and reduce conceptual inconsistencies, the United Nations decided in 2004 to categorize vulnerability according to disaster reduction, by distinguishing between physical (exposure of vulnerable elements within a region), economic (monetary resources of individuals, groups and communities) social (non-economic aspect determining the well-being of individuals) and environmental factors (state of the environment within a region).
Based on this UN statement, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a reference for vulnerability assessments in the face of climate change, defined vulnerability as follow: “The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity » (IPCC, 2014).
This definition will be used because vulnerability consists of two interesting elements for the investigation: exposure to hazard and coping capability. Thereupon, human vulnerability can be defined as the exposure to hazard by external forces such as climate change, together with the coping capacity of people to reduce risk from exposure (UNEP, 2003).
Vulnerability to climate change can be observed when looking at the physical impacts of climate change on the availability of resources that people depend on and the ability of people to continue to access scarce resources (Gupta et al., 2010). In 2001, the Third Assessment of the IPCC recognized that the impacts of climate change were not evenly distributed. People who will be the most exposed are also the ones that the least able to cope with associated risks (Adger et al., 2003). As a result vulnerability is a worsening precondition of climate change, but it is also a result of the inevitable and growing effects of climate change.
Vulnerability takes part in the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (See: 2.2), where it is described as the insecurity in the well-being of individuals and communities in the face of external shocks (illnesses, floods, storms, droughts, pests, diseases), seasonalities (prices, employment opportunities) and critical trends (demographic, environmental, economic, governance, and technological trends). People move from vulnerable positions to better situations, and the framework captures the processes of change better than any poverty line measurements. Vulnerability is also intimately linked to adaptation strategies (2.1.4), as reaction from actors and systems depends on the characteristics of the climate
stimulus, such as the degree of exposure to the stress, the scale and magnitude of the event (Smithers & Smit, 1997).
2.1.4 Adaptation strategies
TheIPCCdefines the adaptive capacity as the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and changes, as « adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”. This definition is interesting for the purpose of the research because it includes adjustments in both behavior and in resources and technologies (Mehar et al., 2016).
While climate impacts are increasingly reported, the debate over managing adaptation has progressed very slowly. According to McGray et al. (2007), this is due to confusion, « a definitional problem », about the relationship between adaptation and development. Morton (2007) reports that differences between coping (generally short term and motivated by a crisis) and adaptation strategies is sometimes indistinct : « what start as coping strategies in exceptional years can become adaptations for households or whole communities ». Small scale farmers, with limited means, usually start coping with what is available around them. Grouping, they start training (See: 6.1.2) and put in place more structured adaptation plans. As a result, the research assesses the adaptive capacity, relevant to small scale farmers coming together, referring to a longer time frame and also implying some learning (Smit & Wandel, 2006).
Adaptation occurs at two levels: the farm level focusing on micro-analysis of farmers decision-making, and the macro level focusing on national and regional concerns about agricultural production
(Bradshaw et al., 2004). The level of analysis of this study is the micro level, for a matter of feasibility and utility in closing gaps in literature.
It is assumed that adaptation strategies reflects a concern regarding climate variability, but the research also acknowledges that it might be profit-driven initiatives (IFRI, 2007). Likewise, the research embraces the complexity of decision-making and human behavior, rather than following Ricardian models assuming optimal and rational behaviors of farmers (Kandlikar & Risbey, 2000). Farmers are neither naïve (making rational decisions and ignoring the external threats) nor clairvoyant (knowing exactly how future weather conditions will impact their activities). In less industrialized countries, farmers’ tactical responses are very heterogenic (Gupta, 1998). Adaptation strategies are influenced by a wide range of factors such as their expectations of future climate and economic conditions, past farming decisions, the resources they own, incentives or disincentives for adaptation, and the socio-political and cultural context of their area (Kandlikar & Risbey, 2000).
The study touches upon the notion of well–being, arising from successful adaptation, decreasing vulnerability (2.1.3) and increasing resilience (2.1.5). It is understood and assessed according to
Ostrom’s (2005) definition, in terms of income, basic needs, security of person and property, sustainability, empowerment and feeling of inclusion. Adaptation decisions (or lack of it) affect well– being outcomes for individuals, households, groups, and communities. The study goes beyond the physical and biological dimensions of adaptation, taking into account its socio-relational and subjective dimension (McGregor et al., 2009).
Agriculture can be made safe or socially and environmentally correct through good agricultural practices (GAP), which are the set of agro-sylvo-pastoral techniques that minimize risk, maximize production while insuring human security, as defined by the FAO (2002). It is a set of principles to make agriculture less dependent on chemicals, less aggressive to the environment and more socially
conscious, therefore, more sustainable. The concept is a normative rule of conduct, regarded as the standard of correctness in agriculture by agroecologists (2.1.8) and an increasing number of institutions, such as the United Nations and the FAO.
Adaptation strategies cover these practices, but also encompass the notion of adjustment to new risks of changing climatic conditions. As a result, GAP make the link between adaptation strategies and agroecological practices(2.1.8) well documented in the literature (GWP/AO, 2010; MEDD, 2011; GIZ, 2012; AgrysudInternational, 2010), but not specifically in the face of climate change.
The adaptive capacity links vulnerability (2.1.3) and resilience (2.1.5) (FAO, 2013) (See: Figure 2). It is also linked to people’s perceptions on climate variability
(2.1.2), knowledge of climate conditions and access to meteorological data.
2.1.5 Resilience
The definition used is from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDISDR), for its broad-spectrum and common use in papers or projects. Resilience is : « The ability of a community to resist, absorb, and recover from the effects of hazards in a timely and efficient manner, preserving or restoring its essential basic structures, functions and identity » (UNISDR, 2009). In other words, resilience is the “successful
adaptation to adverse circumstances” (Ahern et al., 2006). Climate resilience is the capacity to diminish the impact, to adapt and to absorb unpredictable weather events and disruptions.
The concept of resilience goes hand in hand with collective action. Community-based action (2.1.7) is often a suitable solution to resist to the climate threats as communities often share a similar opinion of the problems and because the likelihood of successful adaptation is higher when more people are involved.
2.1.6 Community-based action (Female Associations)
From the Suffragettes Movement to campaigners against violence, collective action for and by women has a long history, being a powerful mechanism of empowerment (Evans & Nambiar, 2013). Women’s collective action has many antecedents in a long history of women’s organizing to promote economic, social and developmental goals (Sweetman, 2013). Nowadays, understanding intrinsic motivations of collective action to enhance people’s lives, its disruptive power in institutional and political systems, has become a pivotal investigation in development (Corduneanu-Huci et al, 2013).
The importance that rural women attach to group participation, the identification of common interest, the contribution to their well being, their position in the household, self confidence and empowerment, is underlined in numerous studies (Action Aid et al., 2012; World Bank, 2012; Charman, 2008). However, despite the broad literature on climate change adaptation, more specifically on international and national policy responses or individual and households responses, there is a lack of documentation regarding community-level responses to climate change (Bryan & Berman, 2013). As a result, there is still an important need for future studies that explicitly consider actions and outcomes of collective action in the context of environmental change (Murtinho, 2016).
A growing body of literature is now studying collective efforts of members of communities against climate change. Authors like Adger (2003), Ayers & Forsyth (2009) and Dodman & Mitlin (2011)
investigated collective action against climate change in the last thirteen years. Nevertheless, the latest research about female associations in Burkina Faso was done in 1991, by Chambers. The paper was already drawing attention on the lack of documentation regarding female associations in Sahel, particularly in Burkina Faso, as well as its tremendous potential in urban farming. A recent study from Oxfam in three African countries highlighted that collective action had advantages for improving the position of small-scale farmers in markets, such as efficiency in the delivery of inputs and training, economies of scale and increased bargaining power (Baden, 2013). These two papers are used in Chapter 5 to assess the advantages of grouping.
The definition used for collective-based action to adapt to climate variability is the one used by Bryan & Berman (2013), for its adaptability to the diversity of collective action in agriculture in Burkina Faso. It encompasses as any group–based approach to adaptation with the following characteristics:
• It requires collective action and social capital
• It incorporates information about long–term climate change and the anticipated impacts into planning processes
• It integrates local knowledge and perceptions of climate change and risk management strategies • It emphasizes local decision-making processes
• It is in accordance with community priorities and needs • It provides poverty reduction or livelihood benefits
National Adaptation Plans of Action (NPA) often fail to adequately include local communities and institutions in the policy–making process Bryan & Berman (2013), hence the relevance to focus on community-based groups. Local and context-based decision making in the design and implementation of strategies is very important, so this emphasis suggests that community-based action are more efficient compared to top–down, one–size–fits–all strategies (Chambers, 1983).
Autonomous adaptation (people adopting individually, on their own) is increasingly undermined by extreme weather events such as flooding. As a matter of fact, the government has recently placed emphasis on women’s groups. For the first time in history, community-based female groups have been included in the last NPA (MERH, 2015) as « structures to reinforce in order to tackle climate change issues ».
Community-based action is intimately linked to adaptation (2.1.4) as it relates to collective organization and adaption in communities as well as resilience to climate risks (2.15).
2.1.7 Urban and Peri-Urban agriculture (UPA)
Researches on UPA are relatively recent even though it was practiced in ancient cities all around the world (Cissao, 2011). For Mougeot (1994) and Chevrier (2001), « urban agriculture » does not refer to anything new in urban activities, and it is a reality as old as cities themselves. From the eighties, between 10 and 25 % of the urban population in Africa practiced agriculture in an urban setting, whereas it reached 70 % in the nineties (Rogerson, 1997). Authors like Rabinovitch & Schmetzer (1997) were then convinced that urban agriculture remained in the city participated in the fight against malnutrition and urban poverty. Since 2000’s, this vision is widely shared today by several important actor acknowledging the remarkable magnitude of the phenomenon in cities of the global South (FAO, 2011;
Bellwood-Howard et al., 2015, UN, 2015). UPA became a « lever for action » in development policies and the fight against poverty in urban areas (Robineau, 2014).
FAO’s (2011) definition is used because it encompasses the amplitude of the phenomenon and corresponds to the actual UPA in Ouagadougou. Specifying that there is no consensus on the definition, they stated: « it refers to food production systems within cities or their surroundings, and which effectively contribute to food access and supply while creating job and income opportunities for the poorer segments of the population ». Urban agriculture is mainly made of vegetable crops, fruit farming and livestock agriculture. It remains characterized by its proximity with the consumer market, which reduces considerably the costs of transportation, storage and preservation (IAGU, 2007).
Moustier’s (1998) definition of a peri-urban area is adopted for the research. « Peri-urban » is considered as such until the maximum distance away from the city center within which farms can supply perishables to the city on a daily basis. It is relevant for the study because Loumbila is situated 22 km away from Ouagadougou, and because the focus is on off-plot farming (rather than home plots) providing food for personal consumption and sales on local markets.
The Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine (IAGU) (2007) assessed financial means of urban farmers in Ouagadougou, Kêdowidé et al. (2010) and other academics conducted a research on spatial distribution of gardening activities, LeGall & Brondeau (2012) investigated land security and the most recent study, by Bellwood-Howard et al. (2015) investigated trends in urban agriculture, water provision and soil fertility in comparison to Tamale in Ghana. Nevertheless, UPA still needs a certain « conceptual maturity »: greater internal coherence and external functionality to turn it into a distinctive and useful tool for us to understand and intervene in scientific, technology and policy fronts (Mougeot, 2000). As off today, no studies were completed on the impacts of climate variability in UPA in Ouagadougou. UPA is related to vulnerability (2.1.3). In big cities, prices sometimes become inaccessible, because of food scarcity caused by climate variability or at the opposite, abundance of certain products on markets. As a matter of fact, the FAO (2011) describes it as an effect of the « urbanization of poverty ». UPA also conditions the set of adaptation strategies (2.1.4), notably depending on land configurations, water availability, contamination levels and access to fundings and materials, more easily found in cities. Agroecology (2.1.8), as a set of GAP (2.1.4), is also shaped by urban constraints or advantages, such as proximity, sparing no need for food preservation for instance.
2.1.8 Agroecology
The concept of agroecology is relatively new. It appeared for the first time in an article from Bersin in the thirties’s (Leao & Benaudo, 2013). Until the sixties, it was essentially a scientific discipline. After the first ecologist movements in South America, rejecting industrial agriculture, it encompassed an ecological dimension. Agroecology as a set of GAP was born in the 1980s (IRED, 2011), in response to the Green revolution. In the last twenty years, the number publications and projects examining agroecology has exponentially increased (Wezel & Soldat 2009; Amekawa, 2010; Leao & Benaudo, 2013; FAO, 2014; Thapa, 2015; Mousseau, 2016). These authors came to the conclusion the concept was used as « a science, a movement and a practice ». In that regard, there is a recurrent discord about its designation of both an area of scientific research and a set of principles defended by social movements. Nevertheless, both ideas have the same ambition: reuniting ecology and agricultural production. Discordance depends very much on the amount of concessions made with regards to conventional intensive farming model (Inter-Réseaux & SOS Faim, 2011). Recently, 70 scientists sent a letter to the FAO to congratulate the UN for organizing a promising agroecology symposium and
calling for a “UN system-wide initiative on agroecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises” (Ahmed, 2014).
Agroecology is « the result of the fusion of two scientific disciplines: agronomy and ecology. It is both a science (application of ecologic science to sustainable agro-ecosystems), and a set of practices (seeking to optimize agro-ecosystems by imitating natural processes, fostering beneficial biological interactions and synergies between their components) » (Inter-Réseaux & SOS Faim, 2011). This definition is adopted for its recognition of agroecology as a science, but also as a practice easily observable on the field. Agroecology helped significantly small, traditional and subsistence farmers to attain food security (Leao & Benaudo, 2013). It is a pathway through a more sustainable and equalitarian food production system.
Agroecology, by definition, is fully in line with the new challenges of the twenty-first century. In his book, Climate Change and The Agriculture Crisis : Agroecology as a Solution, Thapa (2015) explains that it is a sustainable alternative to the climate change crisis. « The solution is to promote biodiverse, ecological, organic farming, which produces more food at lower cost, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the resilience of farming systems to climate chaos, and enhance the capacity of agriculture communities to adapt to climate change » he insists. Agroecology is a set of adaptation strategies, that also helps to mitigate climate change (2.1.1). For instance, it reduces CO2 emissions as it is not releasing methane and nitrous oxide thanks to ban of chemical inputs and burning of crop residue.
2.2. FRAMEWORK
Concepts and approaches defined and selected in the first part served to build-up an integrated theoretical framework for the specific purpose of this research. Drawing on four inspirational frameworks, this new framework embraces the complexity of the problem while also filling gaps identified in the literature for the every concept. Chosen approaches from existing theoretical frameworks are justified and explained with regards to the relevance in the context of this research. This figure draws on four frameworks to include every concept in the reflection and collecting of data:
The gender and climate change framework, by Bryan & Berman (2013), includes social aspects of
collectively-based adaptation, namely gender, assets and institutions, it helps answering questions on vulnerabilities arising from climate threats as well as identifying adaptation strategies. The strength of this framework is that the adaptation arena is seen as a dynamic area, because resources change over time. Collective adaptation is seen as a « continuous process of contestation, attempts and negotiation », meaning that it is a uninterrupted adjustment rather than « means to an end » (Mansuri & Rao 2013). Throughout the research, empowerment is understood as a process, rather than an outcome measurable at a specific point in time (Baden, 2014).
Drawing on Sen’s (1999) capability approach, agency is observed and measured as individuals’
freedom to participate in the agricultural work, collective activities and make decisions. Also drawing on
Wu’s (2013) measurement of women economic empowerment, the framework pays attention to « capabilities, skills, knowledge and confidence to pursue their own interests », in particular, their
knowledge of climate change, of adaptation strategies available to them, of needs of the communities, but also their willingness to move towards sustainable models. This focus on women agency goes along a willingness to go beyond policies focusing exclusively on discriminations (Moleketi, 2014).The focus should maybe shift from “women as a problem in development” to “development as problem for women”(Ferguson, 1990).I embrace a “positive development dialogue” (Warren, 2014), where women are not seen as victims but as agents of change, with their own distinctive features. It helps answering the third sub-question about the benefits of grouping to build resilience. The focus of the study is not on gender inequalities, but on how women (relative to men) are “differentially impacted by climate change” (Meyiwa et al., 2014).
The community-based adaptation (CBA) framework, by Care (2009), serves to identify the four main components of community-based adaptation. I appreciated the NGO’s perspective on CBA as an holistic and integrated approach, that merge traditional knowledge with innovations and technologies in order to tackle vulnerability while enhancing resilience. The study focused on four inter-related strategies, at the community level. First, on « Climate-resilient livelihoods », to see if people have access to climate information, if they support climate-resilient livelihoods and if they understand the risks and promote certain adaptation strategies. Secondly, on « Disaster risk reduction », to determine if plans are implemented and if they have the capacity to respond to disasters. Thirdly on « Capacity development », to see if members of the association have the capacity and resources to monitor and analyze information on current and future climate risks, but also to implement adaptation activities. And fourthly on « Addressing underlying causes of vulnerability », to observe if processes are participatory, if women have a voice in local processes and control over some vital livelihood resources. This framework, by highlighting enabling factors for adaption in communities, guided the data collection and helps answering questions regarding vulnerability and adaptation strategies.
The Sustainable livelihood Framework first appeared in a paper written by Chambers and Conway in 1992, in response to the increasing neoliberal influence of SAPs for agriculturalization and de-peasantization of developing countries (Amekawa, 2011). Even though there is a diversity in interpretation of the approach (Hussain, 2002), the most commonly used definition of SL remain : « a livelihood that can cope with and recover from the stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future without undermining the natural resource base » (Chambers & Conway, 1992).
The SL approach takes a holistic perspective, taking into account the context, the resources, the institutions, livelihood and outcomes. The approach is people-centered, fostering people’s participation, and it is reflexive, acknowledging the intended and unintended outcomes of the strategies initiated. Just like agroecology, it is a cross-disciplinary approach to development, it encompasses sociological, geographical, environmental, political and anthropological issues. Both agroecology and SL approach recognize the importance of local knowledge in livelihood generation (Altieri, 1998). They are both based on Sen’s assumption that poor people have agency in shaping their lives out of poverty, so these two approach form a new framework that Amekawa (2011) describes as an « integrated approach to rural development ». The synthesis between agroecology and the SL approaches gave birth to an integrated approach placing rural poor at a central stage. Being participatory and action-oriented, people’s empowerment increases through collective action. It also aims to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration between agroecologists and social scientists who have been excluded due to the establishment of agroecology as a scientific discipline.
This framework helps answering the fifth question regarding agroecology, as a sustainable alternative to food production systems. Repertoire showing strategies available exist, but the literature confirmed that sustainability of agroecology and its applications by resource-poor and smallholder farmers in different contexts should be a greater concern (Amekawa, 2010). Moreover, agroecological research needs a new « interdisciplinary framework », that combines biophysical sciences, ecology and other social sciences
The following research design was elaborated from the need to make the link between theory, reality and phenomenons, and was driven by a certain epistemology and ontology. The research is mainly qualitative, but also includes some quantitative data. The chapter reveals how research questions were addressed on the field. The first section presents the main research question, as well as the sub-questions that constitute it. A conceptual scheme is then presented to depict relationships between concepts raised by the research questions. The second section discusses the research methods used throughout the fieldwork. The third section addresses the methods of data analysis. The fourth section assesses the ethical issues that arose during fieldwork, and the final section presents and acknowledge the limitations and difficulties encountered.
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the purpose of the research, the concepts and theoretical framework discussed previously, the following research questions emerged. They evolved in accordance with findings and challenges arising during fieldwork.
Main Research question
The thesis aims to answer the following main research question:
From risk to resilience: how do female farmers adapt to climate variability
through associations and agroecological farming in peri-urban agriculture in
Ouagadougou ?
Sub-Questions
1. What are female farmers’ perceptions of climate variability?
This sub-question aims to provide a picture of farmer’s perceptions of climate variability in Ouagadougou. Results provide a baseline for further discussions about climate change adaptation.
2. How does climate variability affect female farmers’ vulnerability?
Determining women’s vulnerability is an important step preceding research about adaptation because the way they perceive climate variability and its consequences on their every day lives determines how they adapt.
Chapter 3
Research
Design
3. How does grouping help female farmers build resilience?
The goal is to identify the advantages and disadvantages perceived by women regarding working in an association, describing vision and understandings of reality at a group level.
4. What adaptations strategies have been put in place in the face of climate change ? 5. What is the potential of agroecology in Burkina Faso within female associations building
resilience against climate variability ?
These last questions bring to light climate-smart agricultural practices put in place by women’s groups. Agroecology is seen as a way to build resilience in the face of climate variability and as a visionary way to facilitate the transition towards sustainable food production systems.
3.2. CONCEPTUAL SCHEME
3.3. RESEARCH METHODS
3.3.1. Units of analysis
The units of analysis are female food producers (small-scale farmers) in peri-urban agriculture who joined a women’s group, in the city of Ouagadougou and in inner suburbs and villages. I used non-1 probability, or purposive sampling to find specific groups of persons (Bryman, 2008). Farmers had to fill the following eligibility criterion:
• Be a woman
• Belong to a group of farmers
• Be involved in market gardening activities, growing vegetables, fruits and/or cereals • Crops had to be cash crops, i.e. grown for personal consumption and profit
Instead of saturation, the research valued representativeness on a local and regional level. Farmers characteristics were far-reaching to remain applicable to other female farmers working around Ouagadougou, in the same climatic zone of the country. The snowball effect enabled the introduction to similar women’s groups: participants and key informants helped finding other groups within the erratic context of urban agriculture in Ouagadougou.
3.3.2. Epistemology
The research adopts a constructivist epistemology, whereby it is assumed that social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals (Bryman, 2012). Aligning to this, Bryman discusses a subjectivist approach, where there is no objective reality, only several personal perceptions of circumstances. To encompass the complexity of interrelated issues, I took an entirely inductive, interpretivist epistemological standing where it is believe that the foundation of knowledge lays in reality, where theories and generalization are drawn from evidence on the field and data analysis
(Sumner & Tribe, 2008). I believe that, as Cresswel (2008)stated, exploring a social problem involves focusing on individuals and drawing conclusions out of their personal experiences.
Answers to the first sub-question, « What are female famers’ perceptions of climate variability? », are subjective perceptions of reality, hence the relevance to focus on knowledge that emerges from individual records. For questions regarding vulnerability and adaption strategies, social and religious beliefs were more relevant than empirical truth, especially among a population where illiteracy rates are very high. For the third question, priority was given to social epistemology, which is the collective knowledge acquired through farmers associations (Truncellito, 2007). For the fourth sub-question, it is well acknowledged that agroecology is based on endogenous knowledge, therefore the appropriateness of an inductive attitude, giving voice to local populations who are reviving local expertise after many years of colonialism and cultural expansionism.
The research embraced a practice-oriented approach. From the formulation of the questions, this applied research, took into account the feasibility of the solutions on the field. It aims to « bring solutions to a given problem with the intention of applying it in concrete terms » (Angers, 2000). The research is exploratory and tries to identify and define problems while taking into account the complexity, difficulties and unforeseen events of farmers’ everyday lives.
The study focuses on urban agriculture, or areas at the maximum distance away from the city center within which farms 1
Furthermore, my ecofeminist stance is underlined by a feminist and ecological theory. As argued by
Warren and Cheney (1991) ecofeminist theory is situated, which means that it emerges from people’s experiences, observations and changes overt time. Situated knowledge requires that the object of knowledge be actor and agent, and not exclusively screen or resource (Haraway, 1988). I am convinced that women are significantly active in the Burkinabé society, and their experiences, voices, perceptions and expertise participated in the active construction of the knowledge I was looking for. Inductive methods then hold a significant place, giving priority to bottom up approaches while also considering existing theories and secondary data (or top-down approaches).
3.4. MIXED METHODS
This research combines different methods, with an emphasis on qualitative methods as the fieldwork’s main objective was to report about personal perceptions of the reality of climate change, women’s impressions and personal experiences about working in an association and sharing knowledge with their peers. Surveys were a « non-dominant method » (Sumner & Tribe, 2008), used a first step in order to identify female farmer’s understanding of climate variability before delving into impacts on their livelihoods and what was done about it in order to increase their resilience. The choice of mixed methods emerged from a need to refer to the frequency of the phenomenon being referred to in my qualitative analysis (Bryman, 2012), as statistical data would corroborate qualitative and descriptive findings.
As the research is based on grounded theory, where the data is « inductively generated through fieldwork » (Patton, 2002), data collected was used in the elaboration of next steps and further research. Therefore, the research methods will be presented in chronological order.
3.4.1. Observations – Visits on the field
Qualitative research is an induction process, made out of a large number of everyday life observations. Therefore, ’reading life’ as a text helped during the interpretations of farmers’ realities (XueHong, 2002). A total of 9 locations where female farmers gathered to join forces were visited. Fieldwork notes, alongside with drawing, sketches, pictures, and records of spontaneous conversations, were used to keep track of meetings and events, in their chronological order.
3.4.2. Stepping into female farmers’ shoes
I participated in people’s daily activities in order to learn through exposure to the hard labour during three days in Gounghin South . I confirmed the pertinence of my research questions by experiencing 2 the difficulties myself. To start the research on an equal basis, I also wanted female farmers to let a european researcher participate. Participant observation proved to be a good way to approach participants in their own environment, rather than having participants come to the researcher (FHI, 2005).
The experience reinforced my relationships with farmers and improved my cultural knowledge of adaption strategies. It alleviated the occurrence of “reactivity” that arises when people know that they are being observed (Bernard, 1994). Participant observation data consisted in detailed textual field notes, drawings, maps and simple numerical data. Participants shared their difficulties inherent to the
The chosen location was in Gounghin South because of its centrality in the middle of the city of Ouagadougou. A river 2
