The grey-zone…

As noted earlier, there can be trade-offs between different capitals at different levels. These trade-offs are relevant when it comes to designing and deciding which innovations to

introduce as a part of the CSA project, and the introduction of the mini-tractor is an example of this. The mini-tractor was introduced to help with ploughing, a job that has sociocultural norms connected to how it should be done. I was told that women and high caste men should not plough. The mini-tractor would make the work less physically demanding. For households that had a man at home to do the job, the innovation would reduce the human capital used at the household level, and for those renting majdori, it would reduce the use of financial capital.

Several farmers thought this innovation was challenging to use. One farmer said that if the mini-tractor had been smaller, the work could be done by women (Informant 16, Farmer). In this way it would also help out those families where there were no men available to do the work. For households that otherwise would hire in workforce, using the machine limits use of

76

financial capital and can help increase the farmer’s resilience, in light of Thulstrup’s (2015) livelihoods definition of resilience.

However, another understanding of the same case was that it could be negative to introduce an even smaller mini-tractor than the one they had currently. This was because it would open the possibility of transferring what was earlier considered to be a male job into a female job, and thereby increase the women’s workload (Informant 2, NGO). In this case, a smaller mini-tractor could decrease the human capital at the household level. This could end up as a negative unintended consequence, if it contributes to further reducing the women’s human capital and thereby decreasing their resilience. It becomes clear that how the challenge is framed plays a crucial part in understanding what solutions that are desirable. Which innovation that is chosen problematizes the question of “resilience of what and for whom”

(see Cote & Nightingale 2012), and draws attention to the political sphere (see O’Brien &

Sygna 2013). There are no easy answer to what the best solution is and it would probably depend on what kind of shocks the system is exposed to. As described above, women’s resilience is dependent and a part of the household resilience, but not reducible to it.

This finding is important and it directs attention to the need to consider such possible unintended consequences from the CSA-interventions. The different assets that contribute to resilience can interact in ways that are not obvious. Seen through the three spheres (O’Brien

& Sygna 2013), interventions with positive intentions in the practical sphere can lead to unintended consequences in the political sphere. This is important to be aware of to avoid reinforcing existing power hierarchies that marginalize some groups. Nightingale (2011, p.

17) identified the danger of adaptation interventions ending up favoring those that already hold a stronger position in the society. The finding here suggests that this is a challenge to be aware of. However, I nuance the picture by showing that there are both positive and negative connections between individual and household resilience.

The solutions preferred by the farmers are linked to assumptions in the personal sphere of what a women can or cannot do. When I asked why women could not plough, different answers were given. A practical challenge in this regard was that the ploughing of the khet-land was needed during a specific time in summer before the monsoon season. Therefore, even though there were some men left in the village they could not do it all by themselves (Informant 16, Farmer), which again points to the lack of human capital. If the farmers do not

77 have the capacity to use their land, it can become a negative spiral where a lack of human capital further leads to decreased natural and financial capital.

A different answer was that women ploughing was not good for society, or that men ploughing was the traditional way of doing things (Informant 15, Farmer, Informant 22, Farmer). This argument is different from the practical argument concerning a lack of human capital. When the reason behind the practice is that it is not “good for society” or that is “just how the traditions are”, this suggests that the sociocultural norm and practice is internalised, reproduced and legitimized (see Berger & Luckmann 1967). It might initially have been rooted in a practical challenge relating to the physical hard work, with the practical solution resulting in men doing that job. Through the process of reproducing the norm through action it can be internalised for some of the actors and thus not challenged (see Berger & Luckmann, 1967). This opens up for exploring interesting aspects of cultural assumptions to be explored.

Different studies have different perspectives on the practice of ploughing. Aase and Chapagain (2018, p. 239) points out that “Ploughing is an exclusively male activity like it is all over Nepal”, but they note Laxaas’ (2015, p. 65) finding concerning how women can do the ploughing if they use tractors instead of ox. This shows the dynamics when introducing new innovations and the possibility of altering the reproduction of sociocultural norms connected to gender. Nightingale (2017, p. 14) points to the lack of male labour as a reason for why women have begun ploughing some places in Nepal. Based on these different understandings it is clear that there are differences internally and changes underway

concerning sociocultural norms and practices within agriculture in Nepal. It will be important when introducing adaptation interventions to pay attention to interactions among the practical, political and personal spheres, and to recognize that these interactions are dynamic and

context-specific.

In the table below I give an overview over some of the main findings analysed through Thulstrup’s (2015) description of capitals and resilience. The relevance of human capital and gender sharing of work has been investigated in this chapter. The next chapter I will focus on caste, which is connected to social capital.

78

Figure 13: Table over the five capitals in relation to the case study site

Capital: Describing: In the case study area: Addressed by CSA:

Natural capital Land areas and natural resources

Financial capital Economic resources Main income from farming and remittances

The possibility of selling from production Human capital Labour force Characterized by male

out-migration and gender

In this chapter I have explored the relationship between sociocultural practices related to gender and adaptation, and potential to increase livelihood resilience. The first finding is that there is a gender-based division of work within agriculture in the case study area, often seen in connection with male out-migration. I explored how male out-migration contributes to resilience and the interplay between the capitals at different scales. The analysis shows how the individual level and the household level are not reducible to each other even though they are strongly connected.

The analysis shows how introduction of CSA-innovations in the practical sphere can be targeted towards what can be considered female work. In this way the innovations may influencing social structures related to gender division of work in the political sphere, without directly challenging them. They can therefore be understood as reproducing the current social structures. However, closer analysis shows that they can actually create room for altering the social structures. The last example of ploughing turns attention to how the sociocultural practices can in some instances be founded in the personal sphere. What are the beliefs about what a women can or cannot do? Is it the physical difference based on biological sex, or is it a

79 belief of what is good or bad? Differing perceptions on these questions give different

solutions spaces for addressing both adaptation and resilience.

80