Mission creep...
That's what we were accused of when we did an evaluation of the impact of agricultural research on poverty (https://www.ifpri.org/publication/agricultural-research-livelihoods-and-p...). I remember one of the "old guard" who thought the CGIAR was just supposed to breef for "more food" laughing and saying "what's next--happiness?" (I laugh at that now when I see the very serious work being done on happiness indices.)
Fortunately, the CGIAR has expanded in to looking at poverty, and now agriculture/nutrition/health. But in each case we are able to show strong links between that and agriculture.
I very much agree that population growth is a very serious issue, and a key part of the food security equation. But there are a number of other organizations that address population growth. The question is whether there are links to agriculture, that make it worthwhile for the CGIAR to engage. There may be--but that is a serious matter for discussion. And I would argue that the CGIAR addressing population growth cannot be INSTEAD of addressing gender in agriculture--all the research I've ever seen suggests that women's empowerment is key for reducing birth rates.
But with any kind of "mission creep", it is OK if there is a clear rationale, AND additional resources. At present we are starting to get some significant resources for addressing gender. I agree with Beth Miller that we need "gender and social analysis"--gender can even be an entry point for getting people to look at further social analysis. But what worries me is that if we are now expected to achieve "equity" or "equality" across all different dimensions, we need a LOT more resources--human as well as financial. Please, plese, please, don't put responsibility for that on the backs of the (already overloaded) "gender specialists" without providing for substantially greater resources.
Mission creep...
That's what we were accused of when we did an evaluation of the impact of agricultural research on poverty (https://www.ifpri.org/publication/agricultural-research-livelihoods-and-p...). I remember one of the "old guard" who thought the CGIAR was just supposed to breef for "more food" laughing and saying "what's next--happiness?" (I laugh at that now when I see the very serious work being done on happiness indices.)
Fortunately, the CGIAR has expanded in to looking at poverty, and now agriculture/nutrition/health. But in each case we are able to show strong links between that and agriculture.
I very much agree that population growth is a very serious issue, and a key part of the food security equation. But there are a number of other organizations that address population growth. The question is whether there are links to agriculture, that make it worthwhile for the CGIAR to engage. There may be--but that is a serious matter for discussion. And I would argue that the CGIAR addressing population growth cannot be INSTEAD of addressing gender in agriculture--all the research I've ever seen suggests that women's empowerment is key for reducing birth rates.
But with any kind of "mission creep", it is OK if there is a clear rationale, AND additional resources. At present we are starting to get some significant resources for addressing gender. I agree with Beth Miller that we need "gender and social analysis"--gender can even be an entry point for getting people to look at further social analysis. But what worries me is that if we are now expected to achieve "equity" or "equality" across all different dimensions, we need a LOT more resources--human as well as financial. Please, plese, please, don't put responsibility for that on the backs of the (already overloaded) "gender specialists" without providing for substantially greater resources.