Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Case Study: Measuring Women’s           Empowerment in Tanykina and Sot          Dairies of Nandi and Bomet Counties,     ...
Outline of presentation• Introduction: How do women become and stay disempowered even  during economic development interve...
Introduction: How women become and stay disempowered?                                             Chart: Percentage share ...
Purpose of study: Combining economic development and                     women rights in diagnosis?• Providing women econo...
In what ways are women disempowered              (Known)?       Evidence from Kenya
Inter household Land Access – Tanykina and Sot Dairies            (Waithanji et al work in progress)                      ...
Inter and Intra-household cattle ownership – Tanykina and Sot                     Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progres...
Intra-household Decision Making and cattle Income Control in         Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in progress)  ...
Intra-household Milk and Egg Income Management and                    Control in Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in...
Specific contributors to women’s   disempowerment (new)
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) (IFPRI 2012)•   The WEAI measures women’s and men’s    empowerment, agency...
Impact Evaluation Using Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture(WEAI) (IFPRI 2012; Waithanji et al work in progress)           ...
Some WEAI Results (Tanykina and Sot Dairies) (Waithanji                et al work in progress)Mode sex        N     6DE   ...
Contribution of various indicators to women and men’s disempowerment –                     Tanykina and Sot Dairies (Waith...
ConclusionEconomic issues are major contributors to the gender empowermentgap in economic development   –   Ownership of a...
Way Forward - Dissemination Development partners involved in the study have demonstrated  an interest in integrating wome...
Acknowledgements• Ford Foundation for Funding this Study• Development partners in the WEAI study, namely,  EADD, Juhudi Ki...
Thank You!             18
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Measuring women's empowerment in Tanykina and Sot dairies of Nandi and Bomet Counties, Kenya

2,692

Published on

Presentation by Elizabeth Waithanji at a Ford Foundation roundtable conversation held at Nairobi, Kenya on 4 December 2012.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,692
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Measuring women's empowerment in Tanykina and Sot dairies of Nandi and Bomet Counties, Kenya"

  1. 1. Case Study: Measuring Women’s Empowerment in Tanykina and Sot Dairies of Nandi and Bomet Counties, Kenya Elizabeth M. Waithanji Poverty, Gender, Impacts and Innovation TeamPresented at the Foundation, Roundtable Conversation at Fairview Hotel, Nairobi on 4/12/2012
  2. 2. Outline of presentation• Introduction: How do women become and stay disempowered even during economic development interventions?• Purpose of study – measuring the gender empowerment gap in economic development?• What is the evidence that women are more disempowered than men (known)?• What are the specific contributors to women’s disempowerment (new)?• Conclusion and way forward 2
  3. 3. Introduction: How women become and stay disempowered? Chart: Percentage share of income by women from sale of beans in Malawi Historical marginalization of women (Njuki et al. 2011) through cultural practices and norms Communal discourses used to justify and 1600 35 maintain status quo of women’s 1400 30 marginalization (Nagar 1998; Naryan et Total amount (USD) 1200 % share of women al 2000) 25 1000 Stigmatization and retribution for those 20 challenging gender-power status quo 800 15 (Butler 1993; Waithanji et al 600 forthcoming) 400 10 Institutions – the state, family and 200 5 markets – reproduce and sustain gender 0 0 inequalities (Agarwal 2003; Waithanji et 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 al forthcoming) In markets, men usually take over  The denial of women’s control over traditionally women’s crops once they assets – human, social, physical, became profitable [Njuki et al 2011] financial, natural and political – results in gender inequality and it is violation of women’s rights 3
  4. 4. Purpose of study: Combining economic development and women rights in diagnosis?• Providing women economic opportunities does not necessarily lead to empowerment• Women being aware of their rights without the financial resources to exercise these rights will not also lead to empowerment either• Combining women’s economic opportunities and women’s rights might have the potential to lead to broader women’s empowerment and changes in gender relations• The results described here demonstrate impacts of economic development and the main contributors to the lower women’s empowerment in a livestock value chain development project• The diagnostic method used in this study will enable actors in economic development projects to narrow the gender empowerment gap by targeting of the main development and rights issues that contribute to women’s disempowerment 4
  5. 5. In what ways are women disempowered (Known)? Evidence from Kenya
  6. 6. Inter household Land Access – Tanykina and Sot Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progress) Land Access by HH Headship Land Access by Mode of Milk Marketing 12 12 10 10 8 8 Land size in acres Land Size in acres 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 **Male headed Female headed Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Male headed Female headedLand is the most important resource for agricultural production (Agarwal 1994).None of the women from male headed households owned land. 6
  7. 7. Inter and Intra-household cattle ownership – Tanykina and Sot Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progress)MHH (n=50, 41) had more cattle Men in MHH and selling milk through dairy groups (n=50) and other modes (n=41) owned significantlythan FHH (n=8,9) (p=0.000) more cattle than their spouses Interhousehold Cattle Ownership Intrahousehold Cattle Ownership 6 7 5 6 Number of cattle ownedNumber of cattle owned 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 Dairy groups Other modes 0 Male headed Female headed ***Dairy groups ***Other modes Household head Spouse 7
  8. 8. Intra-household Decision Making and cattle Income Control in Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in progress) In MHH households, head and spouse decide to sell cattle jointly more frequently in HH selling milk through dairy groups than Income from sales of cattle is hardly controlled jointly by men and through other modes. Spouses never makes decision to sell cattle spouses and Men in MHH control over 60 percent of the income alone alone compared to 25% of decision to sell in dairy groups Who in the Household Decides Who Controls Money from Sale to Sell Cattle of Cattle 100% 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 60% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Male Female Male headed Female headed Other outsider and household head Household jointly Household jointly Household head and spouse jointly Spouse Household head and spouse Household head Household head 8
  9. 9. Intra-household Milk and Egg Income Management and Control in Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in progress) Total income derived from milk was significantly higher than total income derived from eggs. Women from HH selling in dairy groupsWomen managed/handled almost all the income controlled more milk and egg income than women from HH usingobtained from eggs and some milk income other modes Intra-Household Management of Intra-Household Control of Milk Milk and Egg income (MHH) and Egg Income (MHH) 25000 45000 100 40000 90 35000 80 20000 30000 70 K-Shillings 60 25000Income in Ksh 15000 50 20000 40 15000 30 10000 10000 20 5000 10 5000 0 0 Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Milk Eggs 0 Dairy groups ***Other ***Dairy **Other modes groups modes Total Household income Milk Eggs Proportion (%) controlled by spouse HH head Spouse Women managed/ handled more money than they had control over 9
  10. 10. Specific contributors to women’s disempowerment (new)
  11. 11. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) (IFPRI 2012)• The WEAI measures women’s and men’s empowerment, agency, and inclusion in Illustration of the 5DE and 6DE agriculture within dual adult /Male concepts in WEAI headed households.• The WEAI is composed of two sub- indices; the 5 Domains of Empowerment (5DE) and the Gender Parity Index (GPI)• The WEAI tool is highly adaptable to different contexts (nDE)• In this study, a sixth domain of empowerment, health, was added to the earlier WEAI in order to incorporate some rights issues (Waithanji et al, work in progress . 11
  12. 12. Impact Evaluation Using Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture(WEAI) (IFPRI 2012; Waithanji et al work in progress)  Health as wellbeing rather thanDOMAIN INDICATORS mere absence of disease orProduction  Input in productive decisions infirmity (WHO 1946)  Autonomy in productionResources  Ownership of assets  6DE index =(1-(% disempowered  Purchase, sale, or transfer of women*% assets  Access to and decisions on insufficiency/inadequacy attained credit by disempowered women in the 5Income  Control over use of income dimensions)Leadership  Group membership  Speaking in public  GPI= (1 – (% disempoweredTime  Workload women*% disempowerment gap  Leisure between them and their primaryHealth  Autonomy in making decisions on reproductive health males).  Attitudes towards gender based violence  WEAI= ((6DE*0.9) + (GPI*0.1)) 12
  13. 13. Some WEAI Results (Tanykina and Sot Dairies) (Waithanji et al work in progress)Mode sex N 6DE GPI WEAI  Men using other modes of milkmilk marketing were significantlymarketing more empowered than men marketing through groups (P=0.037) HH Head 44 0.8740  For both groups men were moreDairygroups empowered than women (6DE)(test) Spous 44 0.6289 e  Gender parity was higher for 0.8278 0.6485 those marketing through groups HH 40 0.9243 than other modesOther Headmodes(contro  Women from householdsl) Spous 40 marketing milk through dairy e 0.5959 0.8244 0.6191 groups were more empowered than those from HH using other modes (WEAI) 13
  14. 14. Contribution of various indicators to women and men’s disempowerment – Tanykina and Sot Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progress) 0.45 Overall, women from both marketing GBV attitudes systems were more disempowered than 0.4 Reproductive health men 0.35 Work distribution Leisure The gender empowerment gap was wider inDISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE) 0.3 HH that sold milk through other modes than Identity card in HH that sold through groups 0.25 Speaking in public Group membership In terms of economic development Women 0.2 Control over use of from HH that sold using other modes were income worse off than those from HH selling in 0.15 Access to and decisions on credit groups Purchase or sale of 0.1 assets Ownership of assets In terms of rights (attitudes to GBV and 0.05 Autonomy in production control of their reproductive health), women from HH marketing milk through Input in productive 0 Men Women Men Women decisions groups were worse off than women from Dairy groups Other modes HH marketing through other modes 14
  15. 15. ConclusionEconomic issues are major contributors to the gender empowermentgap in economic development – Ownership of assets – Autonomy in production – Ability to decide on sale or purchase of assets – Access to and decision over creditRights issues are key contributors to women’s disempowerment – Attitudes towards GBV – Lack of autonomy over one’s reproductive healthFor impacts in economic development to be gender equitable,development interventions must address economic and rights issuessimultaneously 15
  16. 16. Way Forward - Dissemination Development partners involved in the study have demonstrated an interest in integrating women’s rights components in their development interventions and sharing the findings with their partners These findings will be shared with the CGIAR global gender network, which has already demonstrated a great interest in this study The regional network on Gender and Rural development have requested us to share this methodology and present these and other finding in the next network meeting (Jan 2013) 16
  17. 17. Acknowledgements• Ford Foundation for Funding this Study• Development partners in the WEAI study, namely, EADD, Juhudi Kilimo, KARI and KWH• Tanykina and Sot dairies officials, farmers and the community where they live• ILRI management for endorsing this study 17
  18. 18. Thank You! 18
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×