Assessing gendered impacts of post-harvest technologies in Northern Ghana: gender equity and food security

Abstract

Post-harvest loss of grains contributes to food insecurity, high food prices, and climate change. Several post-harvest technologies are used in Northern Ghana to reduce post-harvest loss, yet research on the subject rarely considers the gendered impacts of the introduction of technologies. The social and cultural context must be considered when introducing agricultural technologies into a community to avoid exacerbating inequality. The authors used a gender technology assessment tool to analyze the impacts of an introduction of three common post-harvest technologies to communities through farmer-based organizations (FBOs) in the Northern Region of Ghana. We found that, while both men and women had access to the technologies, the technologies were controlled by literate/numerate men. Although the technologies were controlled by men, their effects overall benefited men and women. When used in combination, the technologies reduced women’s time burden and had a positive impact on household food and nutrition security. We recommend that gender equity be integrated throughout a project’s lifecycle through recruitment of a gender specialist. Furthermore, extension workers and FBO leaders need training and support in gender equity.

Keywords:

• Gender analysis
• technology dissemination
• extension
• farmer-based organizations
• gender transformative

1. Introduction

Post-harvest loss (PHL) of food crops is a global problem that contributes to food insecurity, high food prices, and climate change. Post-harvest loss of grains in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been estimated at 37 percent of weight (FAO, 2011); however others suggest that this figure is overestimated (Kaminski & Christiaensen, 2014). Annual post-harvest losses in SSA are estimated at 9,723,000 tons of maize, 2,971,000 tons of sorghum, 2,764,000 tons of rice, and 1,399,000 tons of millet (APHLIS, 2023).

In addition to the food that is taken out of the food chain, some of the food consumed is of lower quality. Nutritional quality deteriorates in poorly stored grain due to insect infestations (Otitodun et al., 2021) and colonization by toxic fungi such as aflatoxins and fumosin. Africa is particularly susceptible to post-harvest loss due to these mycotoxins because of climatic and storage conditions common on the continent (Gnonlonfin et al., 2013). Poorly-stored grain may have lower economic value and carry risks of food-borne illness (Sugri et al., 2021).

Quantity and quality losses are compounded by foregone economic gains. Seasonal fluctuations in the price of grains offer the potential to take advantage of price differentials; however many farmers in SSA are not able to benefit from this, in part due to lack of access to storage facilities (Nindi, 2020).

1.1. Post-harvest losses and food insecurity in Northern Ghana

Ghana has one of the highest incidences of PHL in the world, significantly higher than other middle income countries (Bendinelli et al., 2020). PHL of maize, a staple in Northern Ghana, is approximately 30% (Opit et al., 2014). In 2021, this corresponded to a loss of 276,569 tons of grain, and a financial loss of US$ 134,158,000. The loss of maize alone accounts for a 3.8% loss in Ghana’s nutritional energy requirements (APHLIS, 2023).

Food insecurity is linked with high levels of PHL, as well as gender issues such as household decision making and the sex of the primary farmer (Kansanga et al., 2023). Food insecurity in Ghana is most severe in the North, with one study finding that 75% of farmers run out of food within four months of the harvest (Kansanga et al., 2022).

Most farmers in Northern Ghana rely on traditional grain storage structures such as mud granaries or cribs, or non-hermetic bags stored in living quarters. Mud silos, traditional granaries, and other containers stored in the house or outside are more prevalent in the Upper West region, while woven bags stored in the house dominate in the Northern Region (Osei-Asibey et al., 2022). Maize stored in thatched-roof granaries in Northern Ghana has significantly higher numbers of beetles (Sitophilus spp.) and twice the number of insect damaged grains than maize stored in bags in the home or a warehouse, leading to high levels of post-harvest loss (Manu et al., 2019). However, Kansanga et al. (2023) found the use of non-hermetic sacks stored in the home more associated with food insecurity than storage in traditional granaries. Pesticides and insecticides may be used for on-farm storage, but their use poses concern for consumer health and loss of grain quality (Baral & Hoffmann, 2018).

Post-harvest technologies have been used to help smallholder farmers reduce post-harvest losses and take advantage of seasonal price variations in grain (Nindi, 2020). Some of the most common technologies include storage structures such as silos, cribs, and warehouses (Danso et al., 2019); bags such as hermetic bags and insecticide-treated bags (Paudyal et al., 2017); and moisture meters to determine if grain is properly dried before storage. Despite the use of these post-harvest technologies, PHL still contributes to food insecurity. While these technologies may be gender neutral, the extension methodologies used to disseminate them may impact gender equality in a community (Medendorp et al., 2022).

1.2. Applying a gender lens to post-harvest loss

Women play an important role in post-harvest activities in Ghana (Duncan, 2004) and throughout Africa, yet most post-harvest research does not consider gender (Affognon et al., 2015; Lelea et al., 2022). If gender is considered, it stops at the collection of sex-disaggregated data without considering the social and cultural context into which agricultural systems are imbedded (Lelea et al., 2022). Post-harvest constraints are both technical and social (Cole et al., 2020). Furthermore, extension and dissemination of post-harvest technologies designed to address these constraints take place within a social context which must be considered when designing programs to ensure equitable outcomes (Manfre et al., 2013). The introduction of new technologies through agricultural development programs can mitigate or reinforce gender inequality (Zseleczky et al., 2014). NGOs and other actors that promote gender equality may slowly change the social norms that dictate priority in access to technologies (Tripp, 2015), thereby addressing the roots of inequity (Cole et al., 2020).

The physical design of the technology as well as intangible aspects, such as the culture and context in which it is used and extension methods and messages, all contribute to the likelihood of it being adopted successfully by both men and women (Damba et al., 2020; Doss & Morris, 2001). The adoption rate of agricultural technologies can vary between male and female farmers and even between female farmers in male-headed households and female farmers in female-headed households (Doss & Morris, 2001). Education and access to extension services, which are correlated with the gender of the farmer, also influence technology uptake (Doss & Morris, 2001). Norms, beliefs, and perceptions such as deep-seated gender roles and divisions of labor (Gebre et al., 2019; Rola‐Rubzen et al., 2020), aversity to risk (Gebre et al., 2019) and status in polygamous households (Tsige et al., 2020), can impose gendered constraints to the adoption of agricultural technologies.

Analyzing gender and cultural factors in agricultural development programs uncovers layered vulnerabilities and access gaps (DiPrete Brown et al., 2020). Recognizing these gaps is the first step in designing equitable programs and policies that strengthen sustainable development outcomes and improve health, nutrition and well-being (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2011; Rola‐Rubzen et al., 2020). This study seeks to uncover these vulnerabilities and access gaps within the specific context of post-harvest storage and technologies in Northern Ghana. We conducted a gender analysis to identify and interpret the consequences of gender differences, disparities and relationships (Manfre et al., 2017) in relation to the dissemination and use of three common post-harvest technologies (moisture meter, hermetic bags, and community aggregation centers) introduced via farmer-based organizations (FBOs) to ten villages in and near Tamale, Northern Ghana five years after their introduction. We sought to assess the following: Do male and female farmers have the same access to and benefit from the technologies? Have there been any changes in gender roles or norms in agriculture or within FBOs associated with the technologies? How do these technologies impact the food and nutrition security of households? These results will be useful to inform the extension strategies used to disseminate these and other technologies into similar contexts leading to equitable outcomes. Furthermore, our study contributes to the scant literature analyzing the gendered technical and social constraints of reducing post-harvest loss.

1.3. Post-harvest technologies

A moisture meter is an electronic device designed to measure the moisture content of grains before storage. The GrainMate moisture meter, which has been manufactured in Ghana since 2018 by Sesi Technologies, is one such device. The technology is designed for use by grain farmers, aggregators, commodity traders, feed producers and warehouse operators and uses a probe-type sensor to accurately measure the moisture content of maize, millet, rice, soybeans, groundnut, wheat and sorghum. The user presses buttons on a small digital panel to choose grain type, and the percentage of moisture is displayed on a screen.

Hermetic bags are composed of a liner of high-density polyethylene and an outer layer of woven polypropylene, which when used together is known to create low-oxygen environments that reduce insect development and eliminate the majority of all insect pests and the damage they cause to stored produce (Williams et al., 2017). The bags may eliminate or reduce the need for pesticides in stored grain. Several types of hermetic storage bags were found in Ghana at the time of the fieldwork. The most commonly-found type in the North was the triple-layer hermetic Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags (Osei-Asibey et al., 2022). PICS bags are designed to reduce grain storage losses on smallholder farms (Williams et al., 2017). Other types of hermetic bags are ZeroFly Hermetic bags produced by Vestergaard SA,¹ which incorporate a pyrethrin insecticide into the outer layer to repel insects, and GrainPro Hermetic Bags, produced by GrainPro, Inc. ZeroFly Hermetic bags were found in only one community in the study area, and GrainPro Hermetic Bags were not found in any of the study communities. While PICS are the most common hermetic bags in Northern Ghana, their use is still constrained by lack of availability (Osei-Asibey et al., 2022).

Crop aggregation centers (CACs) are warehouses with a capacity of approximately 800–1000 100-kilogram bags (80–100 metric tons). The village CACs are designed to store the grain of the community members and are owned and managed by farmers’ organizations in the village. CACs are distinct from many warehouses commonly seen in Northern Ghana built by entities such as MiDA and documented in Manu et al. (2018) and Opit, Campbell, Osekre, et al. (2014) in that they are smaller,² are located in villages rather than on main highways, and are built with in-kind support from the community. The CACs have locking metal doors, metal roofs and a poured concrete floor. The floor of the CAC is also fitted with movable wooden pallets upon which sacks of grain are stacked. The tops of warehouse walls are ventilated with holes covered in screen to prevent insects, rodents and/or reptiles from entering the structure. The CACs often have an adjacent concrete pad of approximately 37 m² used to dry grain before storage.

2. Methodology

The Assessing how Agricultural Technologies can Change Gender Dynamics and Food Security Outcomes Toolkit (Manfre et al., 2017) is a methodology focused on four dimensions: access to assets; beliefs and perceptions about the technology; practices and participation and laws, policies and institutions; and issues of design, use, dissemination and constraints in the use of technology. Information from these dimensions provides inputs for data analysis and interpretation and identifying opportunities for action (see Table 1). Also implicit in the Toolkit is a consideration of the cultural context in which the technology is used. We considered traditional methods of post-harvest storage as well as cultural knowledge and preference, for example, for certain types of food (DiPrete Brown et al., 2020). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis described in the Toolkit (Manfre et al., 2017).

Table 1. Dimensions of gender analysis.

Dimensions	Definition	Examples of points of inquiry	Illustrative questions
Access to assets	Access, control and ownership of tangible and intangible assets	Tangible and intangible resources including land, labor, education, information	Do you own the technology? When you want to use the technology, how do you access it?
Practices and Participation	What men and women do in daily life, in the household, in society	How men and women participate in agriculture, value chains, farmers’ organizations, etc.	How many members are men/women? Who are the leaders of the group?
Beliefs and Perceptions	Cultural norms, perceptions of acceptable and unacceptable behavior	Social norms about what is “women’s work” and what is “men’s work”	Do you believe that being a man or a woman helps someone to become a group leader?
Laws, Policies and Institutions	How men and women are regarded in formal and informal laws and policies	Who makes decisions; who is represented	What qualifications are required to become a leader in this group?
Use and dissemination of technology	How is the technology used by male and female farmers. How was it introduced into the community	Extension methods used, target audience, who was trained to use the technology	How did you first hear about this technology? Do you use the technology? Who has received direct training on the use of the technology? Who has received secondhand training?

2.1. The study area

The study was conducted in six districts of the Northern Region of Ghana: Kumbungu, Saboba, Tamale Metro, Mion, Savelugu and Yendi. The Northern Region of Ghana has one rainy season that normally occurs from May through October (Abizari et al., 2017). Low rainfall favors the cultivation of cereals and legumes. January through June is the hunger season, characterized by high food insecurity, with the most severe food insecurity experienced April through June (Nonterah et al., 2022). Dietary diversity is lower during this period (Abizari et al., 2017), and children, particularly female children, born during this season have a higher risk of severe acute malnutrition (Nonterah et al., 2022). Preservation of grains is crucial for smallholder farmers during this period to provide a buffer against food insecurity (Waldman et al., 2020).

Dagbamba are the primary ethnic group in the area. All villages in the study area are Dagbanli-speaking except for the two villages in Saboba, which speak Konkomba (See Table 2). Social organization is patrilineal, and property rights and inheritance are largely based on paternal ties (Awedoba, 2006). Adherence to Islam and polygamy are common among the Dagbamba. It is common in villages in this area for extended families to live in a compound of thatched-roof mud huts (Otsuki et al., 2014).

Table 2. Communities in which focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted.

District	District Population^a	Community	Beneficiary/ Control	Distance from Tamale (km)	FGD participants
					Male	Female
Tamale Metro	Male 185,051 Female 189,693	Pagazaa	B	15	15	10
Kumbungu	Male 55,291 Female 55,295	Kpalga	B	7	11	4
		Kunkulung	C	8	6	3
		Nakpatua	B	14	16	12
		Cheshegu	C	15	5	5
		Limo	B	12	13	0
		Tindooyili	C	13	8	0
		Kochim	C	14	7	3
		Gbullung	C	17	10	4
Saboba	Male 47,172 Female 48,511	Tindandoo	B	116	12	10
		Kpalba	B	118	11	9
Mion	Male 47,162 Female 47,768	Sang	B	61	9	4
Yendi	Male 76,142 Female 78,279	Malzeri	B	90	8	5
Savelugu	Male 170,199 Female 171,512	Duku	B	18	11	7
		Kpachelo	B	19	12	2

^aSource: Ghana Statistical Service (2021).

Men’s and women’s household finances are normally kept separate in the Dagbamba culture, and each retains the profit from the crops they grow and sell (Friedson-Ridenour et al., 2019). Male household members normally have the largest and most fertile plots of land, with women’s plots being inferior in size and quality (Otsuki et al., 2014).

2.1.1. Study context

The dissemination of the three post-harvest technologies in this study was one component of a large, donor-funded project in Ghana which had since closed at the time of this study. The objective of this component of the project was to develop infrastructure for post-harvest storage and aggregation of grains. The program had no stated gender objectives. FBOs from the Northern, Brong Ahafo and Ashanti Regions benefited from the program. Our sample consisted of 100% of the beneficiary FBOs within 120 km of Tamale, Northern Region. Beneficiary villages were selected by extension workers from the implementing NGO based on the workers’ perceptions that the FBOs in the village were well-functioning, dynamic and capable of managing the technologies. FBOs were required to provide an in-kind contribution of labor and land for the CAC equal to at least 25% of the cost of construction. The authors were not affiliated in any way with the implementation of the project.

2.2. Data collection

Data was collected through fifteen focus group discussions (FGD) with male and female members of farmer-based organizations (FBOs) and 10 key informant interviews (KII) with warehouse managers and leaders of FBOs in communities in the Northern Region of Ghana. Ten communities (referred to as beneficiary communities) had in 2018 been beneficiaries of a donor-funded program which introduced post-harvest technologies to the communities through an international NGO. Five non-beneficiary adjacent communities, comparable in size, demographics and socioeconomic conditions were also interviewed (see Table 2). Data was collected in these fifteen communities from December 18, 2020 to January 30, 2021. Four extension officers who were involved in introducing the technologies to FBOs voluntarily responded via email to a survey on their thoughts on the technology and its dissemination process.

COVID-19 prevention protocols (use of masks and physical distancing when possible) were observed in all gatherings for the health and safety of participants. Discussions were conducted and recorded in the local language (Dagbanli or Konkomba) and transcribed into English. De-identified translated quotes from the participants are used in the Results section to capture the perceptions as expressed by the participants.

3. Results

3.1. Use and dissemination of post-harvest technologies

Farmers in the beneficiary communities use PICS bags to store maize, soybeans, groundnuts, and millet. Food meant for immediate consumption is often stored in non-hermetic bags (jute or polypropylene), not tested with the moisture meter, and stored in or near the home, while grain intended for longer storage is often stored in PICS or non-hermetic bags, tested with the moisture meter, and stored in the CAC. In all CACs, the warehouse managers would accept grain stored in non-hermetic bags, especially if the grain was properly dried (as verified by the moisture meter). However, some groups said that they would educate anyone not using hermetic bags and try to convince them of the benefits of the technology. Managers may also designate one area of the warehouse for grain in non-hermetic bags so as not to attract rodents or insects to the hermetically-stored grain.

Farmers in beneficiary communities use the GrainMate moisture meter to measure the moisture content of maize, soybeans, and groundnut after drying the grains in the sun and before storing in the warehouse. If the moisture content of the grain is found to be too high, warehouse managers asked them to re-dry the grain on the concrete drying pads before storage. Respondents believed that traditional methods used to estimate grain moisture (biting the grain to test resistance or putting a hand in the bag to feel humidity) were usually adequate, but occasionally they misjudged the dryness of the grain, leading to PHL. A respondent explained this realization, “We have realized that sometimes you see your produce as well-dried [using traditional techniques] but the machine would tell you they were not properly dried” (FGD participant, male, Nakpatua).

Both male and female users were satisfied that the moisture meter, combined with the other technologies, reduced post-harvest losses. A participant explains,

In the past the way we were treating the maize, if you store it for some time, it turns black and insects invaded it too. But with the introduction of the machine, the maize always has good quality. Even if you bring your maize to the warehouse and they check and they are not dried, they will let you re-dry it again before bagging. (FGD participant, male, Duku)

Men may be more likely than women to patronize the CAC because they harvest more grain than women. This is due to several reasons, including better access to resources such as fertile land, inputs and machinery, but also because women divide their production area between grain and vegetables and also spend considerable time in post-harvest processing, reproductive, and community activities. A participant explains why a woman might not patronize the CAC; “Our mothers get low harvest [and do not have as much grain to store]. All the men store our foodstuffs there” (FGD participant, male, Kpachelo).

Control communities were not familiar with the moisture meter; however many had heard of hermetic bags either from NGOs or from people in the market. The research team found PICS available in markets, but the nearest input supplier ranged from 7 kilometers away (Kpalaga) to 30 kilometers away (Sang). None of the participants in the FGDs reported trying hermetic bags if they were not introduced into the community by an NGO (control communities). Participants who had heard of PICS bags but had not tried them expressed a willingness to try them if they were brought to the community. A male farmer responded, “We are ready for them. We were told maize stored inside does not go bad;” a female farmer in the same community confirms, “Every farmer in this community will buy it because our crops always go bad during the hot season;” a male participant added, “If the price is not too high” (FGD participants, male and female, Cheshegu).

No CACs were found in the control communities, though the participants were familiar with the concept of community warehouses from various other communities (both related to the donor-funded program and unrelated). FGD participants in control communities store their produce in their living compound, whether that be a mud hut or silo with a thatched roof, or a brick or a cement-block room with a metal roof. “My husband usually puts our crops in my room. I also share the room with my three children. The grains in the room attract weevils and produce a bad odor during the hot season” (FGD participant, female, Kunkulung).

Other participants said that they sell their grain after harvest to avoid post-harvest losses. A participant from a control community told us, “I keep only what my family will consume and sell the rest to market women” (FGD participant, male, Kochim).

3.1.1. Dissemination

Representatives of the FBOs located in beneficiary communities were trained by NGO program extension educators on the use and management of the technologies. The training sessions were held in Tamale, the capital of the Northern Region. Tamale is up to 118 kilometers from the beneficiary communities (see Table 2). After training, representatives were expected to return to their communities and train other members of their FBOs. It was confirmed in FGDs and KIIs that other members were trained. “Only men [from this community] attended the training…but when we came back, we selected some women and added them to our team” (FGD participant, male, Kpalba).

While the training in Tamale was ostensibly open to all members of the FBOs, many women found it impractical or impossible to attend the training because it was held outside the village and their domestic obligations prevented them from leaving the village on short notice. Women who did attend the training were from communities closest to Tamale. The leaders of the FBOs were in charge of choosing who would be trained, and they often chose themselves.

RESPONDENT (male): They [the FBO leaders] selected five men and they went for the training so that they will also teach the rest.

INTERVIEWER: Why was it only men?

RESPONDENT (male): It came in haste and we saw that if we are to include the women in it, it will disturb us [the men].

RESPONDENT (male): The women have husbands, parents. They cook and perform household chores and so it’s impossible to just tell them that tomorrow let’s go for meeting.

RESPONDENT (female): If they don’t pre-inform you and [give you time to] seek permission from your husband, you can’t just go like that. (FGD participants, male and female, Malzieri).

3.2. Access, control and ownership of post-harvest technologies

Both men and women in the beneficiary communities had access to all three technologies, and there were no reports from men or women of being denied access to any technology. However, in two of the communities the CACs had reached their maximum capacity and had to turn away potential patrons, though no evidence of discrimination was found. As the CACs approached their capacity, local patrons, whether male or female, were prioritized over commercial aggregators. The management committees of FBOs were important and influential actors in controlling records, finances and access to the technologies, although other members had a say in their meetings.

Despite equality in access to the technologies, there were inequities in priority of use and control over the technologies. In some groups it was reported that men had priority for use of the moisture meter. Men claimed that access was equal, with one manager stating, “We follow first come, first served basis. I am in charge of the machine and so I will do it for the one who comes first before the next person” (KII, male, Duku).

However, women claimed that the priority was for men. “The men have to finish using it before it gets to us, this is our challenge” (FGD participant, female, Nakpatua). Nevertheless, as the GrainMate can take a reading in one minute or less, the wait time was not long.

Control over the moisture meter is further limited by low literacy and numeracy. Low literacy users of moisture meters depended on the availability of men who understand the use of the meter. A female participant explained, “We just have to wait for them [the men] to come home because they know how to operate it” (FGD participant, female, Nakpatua).

Another woman added, “The moisture meter requires knowing how to read. But most of us here cannot read and write. It was the men who learned how to operate the moisture meter” (FGD participant, female, Limo).

However, limits in control due to low literacy were not exclusive to women; low literate men also experienced a lack of control. A male respondent shared “A lot of us have problems using the machine. That is why we have chosen literates among us to be in charge of that” (FGD participant, male, Pagazaa).

3.3. Norms, beliefs, perceptions and practices

Local gender norms prescribe that a women’s first duty is to her family. This limited women’s participation in training session that would take her away from household duties. Norms also dictate that women ask permission of their husbands, or at least inform them ahead of time, if they will attend an activity that interferes with childcare, meal preparation and other reproductive duties.

Post-harvest processing is considered a household duty and is primarily the responsibility of women. Men are considered better suited to recordkeeping, management, and technology (beliefs) and also are more likely than women to have the formal education needed for these tasks. It is believed that some post-harvest tasks are strenuous and not meant for women. Men are responsible for bagging, packing and unpacking of grains from the warehouse, while women are responsible for the cleaning, drying and winnowing of the grains or stored products.

The introduction of these technologies did not change or challenge gender roles. The role of literate men as managers was reinforced, as literacy and numeracy are required to use the moisture meter and record CAC activities and sales of bags.

The research team anticipated that some community members may be reluctant to store their harvest in the CACs because a large harvest may incite envy or pressure the prosperous farmer to comply with norms of redistribution to other less prosperous members of the community. However, the field work produced little evidence of this. Rather, the participants suggested that if there is resentment, the produce is safer locked in the warehouse than stored in the living quarters (perceptions). When asked by the interviewer, “Does anyone have fears about the number of bags he wants to store there because he doesn’t want people to say that he has too many bags?” one participant responded, “If it is here that is even better because no one will enter your house and say you have too many bags” (FGD participant, male, Pagazaa).

At least two men from other communities did feel the need to hide the amount of their harvest, which influenced their practices. One farmer explained, “We even sometimes load the bags and send them to the warehouse at night for secrecy” (FGD participant, male, Limo). Once in the warehouse, only the appointed bookkeeper could easily know how many bags of grain each farmer had stored.

3.4. Time and labor

The study found that using the moisture meter helps to save women time and labor through its accurate determination of moisture content of grains. Men and women stated that grain stored in non-hermetic sacks had to be checked, winnowed and re-dried after two months, increasing the time burden. With the introduction of the meter, along with hermetic storage, this was no longer necessary. A respondent explains the process:

For the moisture meter, it is easy to … check if the produce is well dried. A lot of the time our produce is checked at the warehouse before they accept it to store in the warehouse. If not properly dried, we will let them take them back for re-drying. The use of a moisture meter has reduced the number of times we have to bag and re-bag our grains due to not properly drying. (FGD participant, male, Kpachelo)

The CAC, along with hermetic bags, reduces the labor associated with storing grain in the home or in non-hermetic silos or containers. The women who previously stored grain in their homes claimed that before the introduction of the CAC, they were forced to clean their rooms several time per day, as grains stored in the room attracted insects and produced an odor, necessitating constant cleaning. A respondent elaborates, “Earlier we slept with our farm produce and it was a problem to us. But now after harvest we send our products to the warehouse, and it gives us enough space in our rooms” (FGD participant, female, Pagazaa).

3.5. Markets and income

Users of the hermetic bags agree that the quality of grain properly stored in the bags is superior to that stored in polypropylene bags.

However, the lack of a market incentive for high-quality grain restricts demand for hermetic bags, particularly during the current scarcity of grain. A farmer explained the lack of price incentive:

The reason why some people don’t have interest in buying [hermetic bags] is that when you store your harvest in the [hermetic] sacks and the other didn’t store his harvest in that, finally [the buyers] buy both at the same price without considering quality. So it’s making farmers stop using them.” (FGD participant, male, Tindandoo)

Another farmer clarifies that, although there is no price incentive, it is easier to sell grain that has been stored well with no visible signs of mold: “There are differences (in quality) but not in the prices. [The buyers] will finish buying the high-quality grain before they buy the other ones” (FGD participant, male, Tindandoo).

The men mentioned an additional benefit of the CAC that was not mentioned by women, perhaps because women have smaller harvests and are more likely to use their grain for home consumption: Storing grain in their rooms, in addition to making a small space more cramped, offers a temptation to sell the grain even if the price is still low. In this way the CAC offers not only a safe place to store the grain, it also allows the farmers to take their mind off of the grain until the price is favorable. A participant explains, “Storing food in the warehouse prevents us from selling the foodstuffs easily without a reason” (FGD participant, male, Tindandoo).

3.6. Post-harvest technologies and food and nutrition security

3.6.1. Food quantity

The three technologies, when used together, reduce post-harvest losses and increase the availability of grains. Though grain losses were not tested empirically in this study, respondents from both beneficiary and non-beneficiary communities consistently said that after two months of storage without using any of the technologies, losses become significant. A male farmer from a non-beneficiary community said, “It takes less than two months and insects start to make noise in the [non-hermetic] sack.” A female farmer from the same community added, “If you want your grain to last for more than six months, you need to always re-dry every two months.” Another female added, “When we notice that the grains are spoiling, we the women would re-dry it. However, when it becomes too black, we bury the grains so that animals will not feed on it” (FGD participants, male and female, Tindooyili).

In situations in which a family is under pressure to manage with infested grains due to the unavailability of better-quality grains, women take a lot of time selecting and discarding the severely damaged ones before use. There is also peace of mind that comes with knowing your grain is properly dried and in the warehouse. A male participant responded, “It was a worry to us because before [the technologies were available] you will be thinking you have food to use and by the time you want to use it, it has gone bad” (FGD participant, male, Limo).

Many participants used the word “safe” in describing the CAC. “If your hut burns down, at least you know your food is safe in the warehouse” (Female FGD participant, Pagazaa).

3.6.2. Food quality, safety and nutrition

In addition to higher quantities of grain, the quality of stored grain is also higher in beneficiary communities. Respondents saw an improvement in the quality of the properly-stored grain in several aspects. The most mentioned aspect of quality was the palatability of the properly stored grain. Respondents mentioned that before the use of the improved post-harvest technology, insects were present in the grain and the palatability of the TZ (tuo zaafi, a Northern Ghanaian staple made from maize flour) produced from it was poor. Some women mentioned a bitter taste associated with heavily infested grain. A participant from a non-beneficiary community explained the current post-harvest practices: “You have to winnow it to remove the insects. You then sieve it and send for milling. The insects may even eat all the good part of the seeds and if you mill them for TZ, the TZ will not be good” (FGD participant, female, Kpachelo).

A female participant from a beneficiary community explained, “If we use the maize from the quality [hermetic] bag to prepare food, it can last for long and has starch in it but the [maize from the] one of poor quality [non-hermetic] doesn’t last long and has no starch in it” (FGD participant, female, Tindandoo).

The issue of the safety of the grain was the second most common response. The following exchange between participants in a FGD indicates that there is an awareness but limited understanding of mycotoxin contamination. One respondent commented, “The extension agents told us that it is not healthy to consume grains that go bad. They [extension agents] told us about the disease, but I have forgotten its name” (FGD participant, female, Duku).

Food insecurity, however, forced some participants to consume infested grains even though they recognized the inferior quality, as indicated in a FGD in a beneficiary community. In response to the question from the facilitator, “So if the foodstuffs spoil as you said, do you give them to animals?” a woman replied, “We just eat it” (FGD participant, female, Limo).

Poor post-harvest practices exposed households to pesticides and symptoms such as diarrhea. This includes some dangerous post-harvest practices like the use of pesticides without respecting the interval of non-consumption. One FGD participant explained the storage practices before the introduction of PICS bags, “We used to store our food in the cocoa sacks by putting two tablets of rat poison into the sacks. We also stored them in our rooms and most of our rooms were not good [i.e., not designed for proper storage, allowed insects to infest the grain]” (FGD participant, male, Sang).

3.7. Group dynamics and governance

Distributing the technologies through farmer-based organizations rather than to individuals has the benefit of group ownership and management of the technologies. In this way, multiple people can have access to technologies that would be too expensive for an individual to own. However, the FBOs did encounter some difficulties in managing the technologies. The biggest governance problem for groups was enforcing the fee for storing grain in the CAC. A CAC manager explained:

[The fee] is one of the greatest challenges. When farmers store their produce and come to pick them up, they don’t want to pay for the charges by saying that they want to sell before they come to pay and finally, they won’t come to pay. (FGD participant male, Tindandoo)

The research team observed one dysfunctional group in the study. In this group, poor governance inhibited the group’s ability to benefit from the program, and at the time of the fieldwork they were not using any of the three technologies. Despite sharing in the costs of constructing the warehouse (all groups contributed 25% of the costs in-kind), they did not take on responsibility for the structure. The door of the warehouse had been vandalized. A FGD participant explained, “The door of the warehouse got spoilt, so some people were able to enter and stole the sacks. Because we have not paid for [the sacks], we can’t go to [the NGO] again for help” (FGD participant, male, Kpalba).

There was also mismanagement of the finances of the PICS bags that were given to the group on consignment. An FBO leader had taken charge of the financial management and had escaped accountability. A participant told us, “The chairman of the group sold sacks without accounting for them. So the chairman should take up the responsibility of paying for it, so that we can redeem our name [with the NGO]” (FGD participant, male, Kpalba).

The CAC was nonfunctional due to the vandalized door. One respondent complained, “Insects destroy our grains when we store our grains in it. [We would like you to] get us some chemicals to control them” (FGD participant, male, Kpalba).

The managers of the warehouse set the price of storage at the very low rate of 50 pesewas (approximately 6 US cents) per bag per month, yet they did not enforce the rate. A respondent complained:

If some people say that they don’t know whether to pay for it is a lie, we all agree to a fee, the members were told, if you dried your produce on the drying floor is 0.20 cedi (2.5 cents) and storing of grain is .50 cedi (6 cents). Right now, some people are drying things without paying anything. The executives need to make us follow our agreements. (FGD participant, male, Kpalba)

Yet others in the group said that the price of storage discouraged community members from patronizing the CAC. A respondent explained, “Some members do not want to pay anything when they store their grains, it is only companies that come here to buy our produce that stores produce and pays for storage” (FGD participant, male, Kpalba).

At the time of the fieldwork only aggregators from outside the community had grain stored in the warehouse. The moisture meter in the same community was similarly mismanaged. Mice had chewed the wire and the meter was not functional.

This contrasts with three apparently well-governed groups that had used the profits from CAC storage fees to construct a fence around the CAC and a drying pad to keep animals away from grain being dried on the pads. They also constructed a small office to store the moisture meter, bags and record book.

4. Discussion

Our research showed that the introduction of three post-harvest technologies to communities in Northern Ghana had differential impacts on male and female farmers. Increasing women’s access to extension services would help to reduce the disparity (Doss & Morris, 2001), but to be effective, extension workers must be knowledgeable in extension practices that are equitable to women and low-literacy audiences. The program was able to reach and benefit both women and men, but it fell short of empowering women or challenging or transforming constraining gender norms (Quisumbing et al., 2023).

4.1. Use and dissemination of post-harvest technologies

Extension services play a key role in the dissemination of technologies. It is well-established that in order for extension services, trainings and meetings to be equitable for women’s participation, women must be consulted about the timing of the meetings, meetings should not coincide with times of household duties, and they should be held close to home (Kaaria et al., 2016; Manfre et al., 2013; Mangheni et al., 2021; Medendorp et al., 2022; Quisumbing et al., 2014; Ragasa, 2014). Despite this knowledge, women are often not consulted when scheduling extension services. Village-level trainings in the case described in this study, while more accessible to women, may have increased the costs of extension provision, supporting the findings of Hillenbrand et al. (2023) that found that programs with large gender impacts were more expensive to implement.

Previous assessments of community warehouses in Ghana have found them to be underutilized, and this reluctance on the part of the farmers to use the CAC was attributed to a lack of trust (Opit et al., 2014). This study, however, did not find any indication of a lack of trust or reluctance to store produce in the CACs (apart from the one dysfunctional group). In fact, several communities complained that the CACs had reached capacity and they had to turn away potential users. We attribute the greater utilization of the CACs in this study to their location in the villages, rather than along highways; the extension methods used to disseminate the technologies, which required the cooperation of multiple FBOs in the community; their ownership and management by the community (FBOs) and an in-kind matching in the form of land, labor and/or supplies. FBOs have the potential to build social capital among their members and this social capital helps them more effectively manage new innovations (Snider et al., 2017).

4.2. Access, control and ownership of post-harvest technologies

In Ghana, especially the northern parts, illiteracy is higher among women than men (USAID, 2020) and women are less likely to be literate in English (Ghana Statistical Service, 2021), the language used in the GrainMate display panel. However it is by no means a problem limited to women, as 47% of all Ghanaians engaged in agriculture have never attended school (Ghana Statistical Service, 2021). Younger women in rural areas tend to have some understanding of numeracy and promoters of the technology should see that as an opportunity to train and educate young women on the use of the tool, as well as on recordkeeping and FBO administration to facilitate and encourage more equity in technology access. The ability to control and contribute to decisions about these assets is essential to changing gender relations (Huyer, 2016). The fact that the GrainMate is manufactured and marketed locally is an advantage to Ghanaian farmers, as Sesi Technologies has been responsive in redesigning the technology and distribution methods to meet local needs (Isaac Sesi, personal communication, August 5, 2021).

4.3. Norms, beliefs, perceptions and practices

Gender norms in agriculture and other areas of daily life are deeply ingrained in Northern Ghana. Gender norms may make it difficult for leaders, such as the (predominantly male) leaders of FBOs, to see women as candidates for participation in training activities or as community managers of the technologies. Options to defy these gender norms may not be seen to exist or may carry a high social cost (Kabeer, 2005). Self-regulation by both women and men serves to reinforce these norms, limiting women’s agency and control over decision making (Friedson-Ridenour et al., 2019). This explains why women in this study may be seen as participating in their own disempowerment by not taking advantage of training opportunities. Therefore, simply offering a choice to participate in a program does not promote empowerment if taking advantage of that opportunity would significantly deviate from social norms (Friedson-Ridenour et al., 2019). Women are also at a disadvantage in management and training opportunities given their lower literacy, stemming from cultural norms about education of girls. Furthermore, women’s participation in productive, reproductive and community roles influences how they allocate their limited time (Kaaria et al., 2016; Tsige et al., 2020). However, women suggested that, if they had known in advance, they may have been able to attend the training. In polygamous households, which are common in the study area, co-wives may be able to fulfill the household duties of another wife, if organized in advance, allowing women to pursue activities outside the household (Gebre et al., 2019).

Changes in gender norms and attitudes are the first step in empowering participants and increasing their agency (Quisumbing et al., 2023). The introduction of these technologies did not change or challenge gender roles in beneficiary communities. Local norms dictate that women are responsible for postharvest processing. However, when technology is involved, as in the use of the moisture meter, the task becomes “men’s work.” Technology, particularly mechanical or digital technology such as the moisture meter, is seen as men’s domain, and control over the technology creates a symbolic power (Rola‐Rubzen et al., 2020).

As seen in other studies, women may engage with new technologies with less intensity than their male counterparts (Gebre et al., 2019). This is due to several factors, including lower yields on women’s plots, which reduces the amount of grain allocated to long-term storage in the CAC, and fewer financial resources because of lower yields. Women are also more risk averse than men, preferring to allocate fewer resources to new technologies (Gebre et al., 2019). Women and men in the study were eager to try hermetic bags that were distributed for free, but less willing to use them at market or below-market prices.

Participants did not deny that the perception of having a surplus of grain might incite the envy of others in the community or impose redistributive pressure to share with those who have less; however, few changed their practices because of this risk. Two participants mentioned that they brought grain to the warehouse at night so that no one would see how many sacks of grain they were storing, perhaps resisting the social norm that those who have abundant resources redistribute excess to kin who have less (Akyeampong et al., 2014). Other studies have shown that men may be more likely than women to avoid redistributive pressures when they are able to hide income (Boltz et al., 2019). In some SSA societies, social norms dictate that women have fewer assets than their husbands, lest they be perceived as disrespectful or untrustworthy (MarketShare Associates, 2022). Interestingly, female participants did not mention the need to protect oneself against perceptions of having too much, perhaps because the harvests of female farmers in the study area are often small.

4.4. Time and labor

While agricultural technologies are meant to save time and labor, some technologies, such as the increasing use of tractors in Ghana, tend to reduce the time and labor of men while increasing the labor burden for women (Kansanga et al., 2019). As women are largely responsible for post-harvest processing, savings in time and labor in this study were found to benefit women. These savings are mostly achieved through less time spent checking and redrying grains that are not stored hermetically, and cleaning rooms where rodents or insects have infested stored grain. In this sense, we see that labor-saving post-harvest technologies defy the common tendency of introduced technologies being skewed toward the culturally ascribed roles of male farmers (Kansanga et al., 2019).

4.5. Markets and income

Farmers reported no market incentives for the use of post-harvest technologies, but some reported that higher quality grain is easier to sell. This affects men more than women, as women tend to allocate a higher proportion of their harvest for home consumption rather than market sales. Women may also be more likely to sell at a time of household need and have less flexibility in when they sell. This fieldwork was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic which negatively affected grain supplies in Ghana (Apaliya et al., 2022). With grain shortages, farmers were able to (eventually) sell grain of any quality. During times of glut, farmers may find an advantage to higher quality grain that is easier to sell, even if there is no price incentive. Nevertheless, as others have previously noted (Osei-Asibey et al., 2022; Shukla et al., 2022), the cost of hermetic bags was often cited as a factor limiting its adoption, despite agreement about the reduction of qualitative and quantitative losses.

4.6. Gender, post-harvest technologies and food and nutrition security

Many respondents mentioned the higher quality of the grain, particularly maize, stored using the three technologies. Women often mentioned that poorly stored grain with high levels of insect damage produces a TZ that is not starchy and has an unpleasant odor. The lack of starch is likely due to infestations from Sitophilus spp., common in stored maize in the region (Manu et al., 2019), which consume the endosperm of maize, resulting in lower carbohydrate levels of infested grain (Stathers et al., 2020). The unpleasant odor could be due to storage at high temperatures and moisture levels, even if the grain is not infested by insects (Stathers et al., 2020).

PHL and loss of food quality and nutrition are a concern for all, although women and children are arguably more at risk. Participants mentioned several situations in which poor post-harvest handling practices resulted in diarrhea for those who consumed contaminated grain. This includes consuming spoiled grain and grain contaminated by pesticides. Children and the elderly have higher morbidity rates from diarrhea (Lamberti et al., 2012), suggesting that improving post-harvest practices would impact the health and nutrition of those groups.

4.7. Dynamics and governance of farmer-based organizations

Working through community-based or farmer-based organizations is a valid mechanism for reaching many farmers. However, often only male household members are members of organizations (Ragasa, 2014). Most of the FBOs included in the technology dissemination observed in this study were male-majority. Female membership in FBOs was considered by the implementers as a positive attribute. However, as Doss (2001) points out, merely taking women into account is not enough to ensure gender equality in adoption of agricultural technologies.

When working through FBOs or any civil society organization, there is the risk of governance problems undermining the success of the project, as observed in the dysfunctional FBO in our study. Organizations with low social capital may not have the cohesion or cooperation to manage large projects and may put a low priority on equity and diversity or resort to clientelism (Snider et al., 2017). As we saw in the extreme case of the dysfunctional FBO, the technologies lost all benefit to the community members due to mismanagement. When community members stopped patronizing the CAC, managers displayed clientelism by catering to the needs of commercial aggregators.

Participating in mixed-sex groups such as FBOs does offer some benefits to women, as they may be able to utilize men’s networks, which are often larger than those of women. These groups may, however, reinforce gender inequities in resource distribution and leadership roles, as was seen in this study. Single-sex groups have the potential to offer more opportunities for the empowerment of women. However, they may face constraints in access to resources (Manfre et al., 2013). Furthermore, as we saw in the groups in this study, women alone did not have the basic accounting skills needed to manage the technologies and always included at least one man as bookkeeper.

4.8. Gender as a cross-cutting theme

Gender equity and engagement is increasingly an area of focus or a cross-cutting theme of development projects. Why might a program with objectives of gender equality fail to provide equitable services? The first consideration is budget. In this case, providing training to women, notwithstanding the constraints of low literacy, would have required that training be conducted in each village rather than conducting one training in Tamale. While this would have reduced transportation costs (only the trainers would have to travel rather than all the trainees), staff time would be greatly increased. Furthermore, documenting the differential impacts on women and men may increase monitoring and evaluation costs, as documentation must go beyond simply counting the number of men and women who benefited from a project (Johnson et al., 2018). Nevertheless, incorporating equitable training and documenting differential impacts would merely qualify a program as “gender accommodating.” To truly be gender transformative, a program must make efforts to address underlying norms and redistribute power in an equitable way. This often requires budget allocations larger than those of gender accommodating approaches (Hillenbrand et al., 2023).

The second consideration is lack of training on gender equity among extension workers. There are numerous extension methodologies that help providers ensure that gender is integrated into extension services (Diaz & Najjar, 2019). However, one-third of extension workers in Ghana reported that they had not received even basic training on gender equity (World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010). Including female extension workers as well as male increases the equity of services, if not the total number of farmers reached (Quisumbing et al., 2014). Female extension workers in Ghana tend to reach higher proportions of female farmers than do male extension workers; however, they tend to reach fewer total farmers (World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010).

Finally, gender may have been considered at certain stages of the program but not mainstreamed (and budgeted) in all levels of design, implementation and evaluation. While gender integration tools offer helpful guidance for self-assessment of gender responsibility, a team member with gender expertise helps ensure that the assessments are based on valid information (McGuire et al., 2022). Incorporating female researchers and other female staff in the project team can be a positive step toward a gender transformative program. However, women are not gender experts by virtue of their sex, and the person in the role of gender specialist should have qualifications in that area (Mangheni et al., 2021).

This study has demonstrated that the extension methods used to disseminate a technology can have gendered impacts on the users. However, we acknowledge several limitations to the study that require further investigation. First, FGDs were not separated by sex, which may have limited how candidly the participants spoke about gender norms and impacts. Second, qualitative and quantitative losses of grain between beneficiary and control communities were not measured, and therefore we cannot make definitive statements about food and nutrition security benefits of the technologies. Third, the timing of the study may have influenced our results. This study was conducted at the end of the 2021 harvest and when food availability was affected by COVID-19 restrictions on movement. Later harvests were affected by drought and grain shortages related to Russia’s war in Ukraine, all of which affect the local availability of grain and the demand for and use of grain storage technologies. Finally, our study consisted only of villages in the Northern Region around the city of Tamale. Results could be different in different regions of Ghana.

5. Conclusions

This research has illustrated the importance of analyzing the impact of technology dissemination on food security and gender roles in agriculture. It has also highlighted the need for a gender specialist at all stages of the program cycle to ensure equity. The GrainMate Moisture Meter, hermetic storage bags and crop aggregation centers make important impacts on the reduction of post-harvest losses, food and nutrition insecurity and women’s time burden. However, in addition to the technologies themselves, the methods used to disseminate technologies to communities must be carefully considered so that inequities are not reinforced.

If a project does not explicitly state its gendered objectives, it has little possibility of having a positive or even neutral impact on gender equity. Even if the program does state its objectives, it may not positively impact equity or may miss opportunities for gender equitable or gender transformative approaches. This is often because gender equity was considered too late in the program cycle.

Working through farmer-based organizations may allow better access to technologies for male and female farmers, but the underlying dynamics of the organization will determine who has control over and benefits from the technologies. Careful selection of equitable organizations or pairing technology dissemination with organizational development may help mitigate inequity. Furthermore, in-kind contributions from the groups induce feelings of ownership of the technologies, leading to better management. An equitable approach may raise training costs by necessitating smaller local training sessions or accommodations for low literacy audiences. Budget allocations for gender analysis and engagement should be streamlined into project activities and should be adequate to fully understand the impacts of any interventions or technologies on women and marginalized populations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the farmers and extension workers who participated in the focus group discussions. We would also like to acknowledge Allotey Samuel and Anita Arthur for their contribution to fieldwork.

This study was made possible by the support of the American People provided to the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for the Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Program activities are funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-L-14-00002.

Notes on contributors

Anna Snider

Anna Snider is a researcher with AgReach and Associate Director of the ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include gender, farmers' organizations, smallholder resilience, and food and nutrition security.

Paul Kwami Adraki

Paul Kwami Adraki is a Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Innovation Communication, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Nyankpala Campus. His research interests include gender and value chains, knowledge management, food and nutrition security, innovation communication, and Social Network Analysis.

Victor Lolig

Victor Lolig is a Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Innovation Communication, University for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Nyankpala Campus. His research interests include gender, rural development, agricultural technology and innovation communication.

Paul E. McNamara

Paul E. McNamara is a Professor of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is the Director of AgReach, a unit dedicated to strengthening agricultural extension systems globally. His research interests include nutrition, gender, extension and climate smart agriculture.

Notes

1 A non-hermetic version of the ZeroFly bag was previously available but has been discontinued by the manufacturer.

2 Manu et al. 2018 mentions warehouses between 500 and 3,750 metric ton capacities.