• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and triangulation
 

Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and triangulation

on

  • 447 views

Presented by Ephrem Tesema at the Livestock and Fish Gender Working Group Workshop and Planning Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 October 2013

Presented by Ephrem Tesema at the Livestock and Fish Gender Working Group Workshop and Planning Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 October 2013


Statistics

Views

Total Views
447
Views on SlideShare
439
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

2 Embeds 8

http://www.ilri.org 5
http://ilri.org 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and triangulation Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and triangulation Presentation Transcript

    • Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and triangulation Ephrem Tesema Livestock and Fish Gender Working Group Workshop and Planning Meeting Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 October 2013
    • Outline • • • • • • • Why Gender Tools The Design Adaptability through pretest Use and misuse gender tools Complementarity with Gender Quantification Triangulation Case Study from LIVES Use of Gender tools in Lome District, East Shoa Zone, Oromia regional State • Merits of Gender Tools • Demerits • Concluding Remarks
    • Why Gender Tools • To carry out Gender Analysis across the VCD, Enterprises and Various Contexts • To Triangulate gender related findings • To Identify Opportunities, Constrains, Alternatives • To Ensure Gender Empowerment in project intervention planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation • To rectify intervention fault lines and to bring positive deviations • To Bring good results and intended outcomes from project interventions • Finally, to bring equitable and equal benefits for female and male smallholders from our agricultural value chain intervention
    • The Design: The LIVES Case • The current gender tool is designed by team members from Nairobi and Addis • Designed to capture both Livestock and Crop related value Chains • The design process was interactive, empowering and gives room for further improvement • Already published and can be down loaded on line
    • Adaptability • Can be adapted to different commodities, VC nodes and contexts through pretest • The repetitions in some parts can be avoided • Needs discussion with team on its use in a way to bring a gender inclusive and disaggregated data • Example from LIVES Team Experience during pretest can give practical challenges and experiences • Scenario 1: Female and Male only FGD • Scenario 2: Mixed Group and Female only Group FGD • Scenario 3: Male only, Female only and Mixed Group FGD Implications: Scenario one: 5Com X 31 DistX2FGD= Implications: Scenario Two:5Cpm X31X2FGD Implications: Scenario 3: 5CpmX31X3
    • Broader Implications of Scenarios • Data Quality and representativeness/inclusiveness • Time and Financial Resources • Problem to handle bulk data and make good use of it Possible Remedies  Team Consensus on uniformity of the process across project intervention areas  Reconcile issues raised the quantitative baseline data with issues raised on the Gender tools  Raise financial resources, sufficient skilled manpower and base the decisions of composition of FGD participants accordingly
    • Case Study from LIVES Use of Gender tools in Lome District, East Shoa Zone, Oromia regional State Women only FGD Men only FGD Gender Interactive FGD
    • Summary of Result A. Women Only FGD • The FGD was conducted with Nine women selected from Dibandiba kebele by a development worker & the East Shoa zone LIVES coordinator. • Dibandiba Kebele is located in East Shoa zone, Lume district, about 65km from Addis Ababa. • As the population in the area mostly speak Afan Oromo, the interview was conducted in both Amharic & Afan Oromo. • There is Ada Lume union farm in the kebele established in March 2010, which is engaged in the distribution of improved pullets.
    • Summary of Results Cont’d • Findings • • • • • About 500 HHs in the kebele 350 MHH (70%) & 150 FHH (30%) About 70% keep poultry Both local and improved breeds Breeds proportion 50% each • Major objectives: • Cash need • As an entry point to engage in other businesses such as small & large ruminants • Considered as an initial step to come out of poverty • Home consumption
    • Summary of Findings Cont’d Major constraints: • Poultry disease/ lack of vet services • Inputs such as feeds, pullets, etc. • Training • Extension services (no follow up) Ownership and management • No differences in ownership patterns b/n MHH & FHHs • But mainly managed by women & youths • No differences in breed preferences b/n MHH & FHHs • Both prefer improved breeds as compared to locals
    • Summary of Results Cont’d • They buy eggs of improved hens from their own area (considering that the hen is good layer) and they incubate it with local hens (reduce mortality and female birds obtained in such way are good brooders) • Marketing decisions - is mainly by women • Parents transfer some of their chicken to their children/youth • Any household member has a right to sell his/her own and manage the money
    • Summary Results Cont’d Division of labor: • Construction of poultry houses by males • Cleaning & other routine management activities by women • Children also do the routine management activities • Different management practices • Improved management for improved breeds • Locals – left for free roaming • Common inputs: • Feeds (maize grain, sorghum, wheat middling, soya bean, salt, etc.) • Except for some who use commercial poultry ration, majority use home mixed ingredients • Health services provided by Vet posts and traditional medicine (Nim tree, solanum ‘Imbowayi’, red pepper, etc)
    • Summary Results Contin’d Market • • • • The most common markets are at Modjo Road side House/farm gate General Observation: • • • • Highly aware women (but different level) Highly motivated & visionaries Weak linkage b/n the farm & the nearby farmers Not organized – for collective action
    • Summary Results Cont’d B. Men Only FGD • • • • Number of Interviews: 8 male farmers Total number of households: 450 Household proportion: 75% MHH 25% FHHH Proportion of household having rearing poultry 80% = 360 HH • Types of breeds: Local 95% , Exotic 5% • Objectives of rearing poultry • • • • Household expense cover Source of food (holidays etc) School fee Asset building
    • Summary Result Cont’d • Constraints in production • • • • Knowledge and skill on poultry production Disease (sudden death) Absence and accessibility of balanced feed (affordability ) Inaccessibility of credit services (Poor linkage, poor facilitation) • Gender ownership pattern • Women at the household level • Children • Breed preferences • Men: color, local male • Women: layers
    • Summary Results Cont’d Gender pattern in decision making • Household level – women with in the household (children themselves) Gender Division of Labor • Women (house wife) • Young ladies (girls) • Improved Management Practices • Due to lack of demonstration on the management of improved breeds, there is no a such improved management practices • Views of the FGD members • We observed that poultry is majorly considered as the task of women • We aware ourselves that the poultry production needs assistance from men (Eg.house construction)
    • Summary Results Cont’d • Conclusion & Recommendation • Hands on, gender sensitive training should be in place • credit facilitation should be in place • Poultry is a women and children friendly venture in the PA • The management, credit provision and emphasis given so far are not what the sector deserves.
    • Summary of Results Cont’d C. Mixed Group FGD • The mixed group FGD was conducted with 6 women & 5 men from the Lume district Tede PA. • 338 Hhs (292 MHH / 46 FHH) • Livestock Production: Cattle, Small Ruminants, Poultry • Poultry present in all HH • History of production: Local --- Improved --- Local Purpose of poultry Keeping • Women: Income and asset building / Home consumption particularly on holidays • Men: Home consumption / income
    • Summary Results Cont’d • Major constraint • Diseases transfer – the locals are not kept in cages • Loss of chicken by predators • Slow growth rate of the local breeds • Small egg size – quality is preferred • feed shortage • Supply of day old chicks • Availability of drugs and vaccines Gender roles in poultry • Ownership HH for local and improved breeds • Role – Local breeds – Production and marketing - women • Improved breeds production and marketing – men
    • Summary Results Cont’d Breed Preference • Women prefer for the local breeds • Men prefer Hybrid – cross breeds Marketing • Seasonal Challenges : • Absence of day old chicks • Access to improved and sustained technologies • This challenge clearly showed the lack of linkages as a there is the Ada Lume union farm in the kebele which is engaged in the distribution of improved pullets. • Genesis farm is seen as an important source of the chicks • When improved technology comes the men are the one that take over.
    • Merits of Gender Tools • • • • • • • • • Empowering and interactive Fun while done in team context Educational and inspiring Subject to amendment and flexibly usable The analysis starts at data collection moment Give room for verification of daring claims The participant can play the role of the researcher Give opportunity to disaggregate data by sex Provides gender, commodity, node, context specific claims • Provides rich/thick data and wider perspectives • Can be done economically • Give room for further verification, to up grade the data quality
    • Demerits • Time consuming • Subject to abuse if good facilitation skill is not encourages ( elite capture, diluted with ovrdominating discourse, create boredom on participant farmers) • Not precise sampling method and way of proving representativeness of findings • Subject to reduce reality per se with trivializing underlying causes of gender inequality in accessing, controlling over resources and enjoying benefits • Time consuming while analysis and synthesis is made and less suitable for software aided analysis • Requires complimentary data sources and further triangulations • Give less chance to prove representativeness and a
    • Concluding Remarks • Create conducive environment for Participatory design, test and use • Involve Multidisciplinary team at all stage of Gender tooling (Setting objectives, designing, testing, use ,analysis and synthesis of results • Fit tools with specific sectors(Livestock/Irrigation),gender/commodity dynamics (poultry, Dairy and Apicultures), Value chain nodes ( production, input, service, marketing, processing etc.) • Compliment results with other methods (systematic observation, archiving, key informant interview, case studies, transect learning)
    • Involve women: LIVES Gender Tools Pretest in Lome District
    • Involve Men as well: LIVES Gender Tools Pretest in Lome District
    • Thank You! Together We Can!! www.lives-ethiopia.org