Evaluating the impacts of livestock microcredit and value chain programs on women's empowerment using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Evaluating the impacts of livestock microcredit and value chain programs on women's empowerment using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)

on

  • 1,710 views

Presentation by Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki, Edna Mutua, Luke Korir and Nabintu Bagalwa at a stakeholder workshop on "Integrating livelihoods and rights in livestock microcredit and value chain ...

Presentation by Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki, Edna Mutua, Luke Korir and Nabintu Bagalwa at a stakeholder workshop on "Integrating livelihoods and rights in livestock microcredit and value chain development programs for empowering women" held at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya on 25 February 2013.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,710
Views on SlideShare
1,054
Embed Views
656

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0

11 Embeds 656

http://agrigender.wordpress.com 300
http://www.ilri.org 182
http://livelihoods-gender.ilri.org 104
http://unjobs.org 38
http://www.ilri.cgiar.org 14
http://feeds.feedburner.com 11
http://cloud.feedly.com 2
http://ilri.org 2
http://xanum.uam.mx 1
http://192.156.137.114 1
http://feedly.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

Evaluating the impacts of livestock microcredit and value chain programs on women's empowerment using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) Evaluating the impacts of livestock microcredit and value chain programs on women's empowerment using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) Presentation Transcript

  • EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK MICROCREDIT AND VALUE CHAIN PROGRAMS ON WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT USING THE WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURE INDEX (WEAI)by Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki , Edna Mutua, Luke Korir, and Nabintu Bagalwa
  • Study Justification• Providing women with economic opportunities, while denying them their rights, does not necessarily lead to empowerment• Neither does women being aware of their rights without the financial resources to exercise these rights automatically lead to empowerment• And these two dimensions (economic opportunities and rights) are rarely applied together in development interventionsCombining women’s economic opportunities and women’srights could have the potential to lead to broader women’sempowerment 2
  • Research questions answered1. What are the gendered empowerment patterns of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries? a. What factors, livelihood or rights, have contributed most to the disempowerment of the disempowered women? b. Are the factors that contribute to women’s disempowerment similar to those that contribute to men’s disempowerment?2. Do different livelihood interventions contribute differently to women’s empowerment?3. How do women perceive themselves in terms of empowerment and how does this self assessment compare with the WEAI measurements? 3
  • ASSETS, LIVELIHOODS AND WOMEN RIGHTS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Shocks ConsumptionAssets/ Livelihood Wellbeing Full incomesCapitals strategies Women’s Savings/ rights investments Women’s EmpowermentContext: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors etc.Legend Adapted from the Gendered Livelihoods Conceptual Men Joint Women Framework by Meizen-Dick et al (2011). 4
  • Impact Pathway Women become more empowered and gender empowerment gap is reduced Projects to implement strategies and evaluate impacts on women’s empowerment and gender parity Develop strategies for ensuring women’s empowerment in development interventions Project teams build capacity to (i)measure women’s empowerment and gender parity in empowerment; and (ii) implement strategies in projects to ensure women’s empowerment 1. Document and Develop analytical Measure the status of disseminate results framework and men’s and women’s 2. Develop a strategy tomethodology for assessing empowerment and the enhance women’sproject impact on women’s gender parity in empowerment in empowerment empowerment development projects 5
  • METHODOLOGY
  • Women’s Empowerment In Agriculture Index-WEAI• WEAI is a methodology developed to track changes in women’s empowerment levels as a direct or indirect result of development initiatives• The methodology was first piloted in 2011 through a collaborative initiative between IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) and OPHI (Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative) for the USAID funded Feed the Future global hunger and food security initiative in Uganda, Bangladesh and Guatemala.• It is composed of two sub-indices – One measures women’s empowerment (5DE) – The other measures the gender parity in empowerment within the household (GPI) 7
  • WEAI cont…• WEAI measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agriculture sector in an effort to identify ways to overcome those obstacles and constraints• The Index aims to increase understanding of the connections between women’s empowerment, food security, and agricultural growth• It measures the roles and extent of women’s engagement in the agriculture sector in five dimensions:  decisions about agricultural production,  access to and decision making power over productive resources,  control over use of income,  leadership in the community, and  time use. 8
  • This study Adapted the five dimensions to six dimensions in order to address RightsIllustrations of five and six dimension WEAI as interpreted from the IFPRI / OPHI / USAID WEAIbrochure 2012 (by Waithanji et al 2012)Health is defined as wellbeing rather than a mere absence of disease or infirmity (WHO 1946) 9
  • Study designThree Case Studies: Two on livestock value chains and one on a livestockmicrocreditFour Partners: One Donor – Ford Foundation; and three economicempowerment livestock projects, KARI; EADD; Juhudi KilimoPartner Location Case Study / Remarks (District) interventionFord Foundation Nairobi All DonorKenya Agriculture Naivasha and Poultry value Resettled IDPs in NaivashaResearch Institute Malindi chain (2007 and before)(KARI) Rural community in Malindi Baseline studyEast African Dairy Nandi and Dairy value Uses the hub model toDevelopment Bomet chain enhance participation in theProject (EADD) milk marketJuhudi Kilimo Transzoia Livestock Provide loans for agricultural Microcredit production (mostly dairy and chicken) 10
  • Site and Sample Selection; and data• Selection of study sites – purposive, based on type of project (and partners with a gender focus)• Sample selection – multi-stage random sampling• Quantitative and qualitative methods – Quantitative – household and individual questionnaires administered to household heads and primary women in male headed households respectively – HH questionnaire had two sections; the household and individual section. Individual questionnaire had an individual section only – Households heads were either male or female. FHH were of the dejure kind i.e. those that had never married or were divorced, separated or widowed. – Qualitative – in-depth face-to-face interviews with women (FHH or WMHH) interviewed in the quantitative component• Data analysis – Quantitative – using SPSS and STATA• Qualitative – analysed inductively 11
  • TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS• The total households were 400 • Interviewed households were % distribution of households derived from: interviewed by project • KARI total of 168 households; 79 from Malindi and 89 from JUHUDI EADD Naivasha. 28% 30% • Juhudi total of 111 households • EADD total 121 KARI households from 42% Bomet and from Nandi 12
  • Results –Women’ s Empowerment in Agriculture Index 13
  • The 1st Sub-Index: THE SIX DOMAINS OF EMPOWERMENT (6DE) DOMAIN INDICATORS 1 Production Input in productive decisions Autonomy in production 2 Resources Ownership of assets Purchase, sale, or transfer of assets Access to and decisions on credit 3 Income Control over use of income 4 Leadership Group membership Speaking in public 5 Time Workload Leisure 6* Health Decision making on reproductive health Vulnerability to gender based violenceThe HEALTH domain is an adaptation of WEAI by the ILRI-PGI team in order tointegrate rights in the index. The domain focuses on individuals’ attitudestowards GBV and one’s ability to make decisions over their own reproductivehealth. 14
  • Cont…The index assesses whether men or womenare empowered across the six domains andone is considered empowered if they attainadequate achievements in 4 of the 6domains or 64% adequacy from weightedindicators6DE index = % of empowered women+ (% ofdisempowered women*% of adequacyattained by disempowered women in the 6dimensions) 15
  • Question 1• What are the gendered empowerment patterns of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries? – What factors, livelihood or rights, have contributed most to the disempowerment of the disempowered women? – Are the factors that contribute to women’s disempowerment similar to those that contribute to men’s disempowerment? 16
  • Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - KARIMode of milk Gender N Proportion empoweredmarketing (% head count) Men 57 60Naivasha Women 89 61 Men 64 60Malindi Women 75 44.5• In Naivasha a larger proportion of women than men was empowered• In Malindi the converse was true• Empowered women and men had attained adequate achievements in 4 of the 6 domains or 64% adequacy from weighted indicators 17
  • Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - Juhudi Mode of milk Gender N Proportion empowered marketing (% head count) Men 69 81 Taken loans Women 80 43 Men 26 77 Not taken loans Women 28 36• A larger proportion of men than women was empowered• A larger proportion of men and women who had borrowed loans than those who had not was empowered• Empowered women and men had attained adequate achievements in 4 of the 6 domains or 64% adequacy from weighted indicators 18
  • Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - EADDMode of milk Gender N Proportion empoweredmarketing (% head count) Men 45 70Dairy groups Women 46 26 Men 40 82Other modes Women 40 17A larger proportion of men than women was empoweredA larger proportion of men selling milk through other modesthan those selling through groups was empoweredA larger proportion of women selling through groups thanother modes was empowered 19
  • Contributors to Inadequacy in Disempowered Women - EADD 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Inadequacy 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Speaking in public Leisure Identity card GBV attitudes Ownership of assets Control over use of income Work distribution Reproductive health Input in productive decisions Purchase or sale of assets Group membership Access to and decisions on credit Autonomy in production Production Resources Income Leadership Time Rights Dairy groups Other modesInadequacy: 1=maximum deprivation and 0=maximum adequacye.g. Of the disempowered women, 83% selling milk through other modes and 74% 20selling through groups were inadequate in terms of access and decisions on credit
  • Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-EADD 0.45 0.4 GBV attitudes 0.35 Reproductive healthDISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE) Work distribution 0.3 Leisure 0.25 Identity card Speaking in public 0.2 Group membership Control over use of income 0.15 Access to and decisions on credit 0.1 Purchase or sale of assets Ownership of assets 0.05 Autonomy in production 0 Input in productive decisions Men Women Men Women Dairy groups Other modes 21
  • Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-KARI 0.3 GBV attitudes Reproductive health 0.25 Work distribution Leisure DISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE) 0.2 Identity card Speaking in public 0.15 Group membership Control over use of income 0.1 Access to and decisions on credit Purchase or sale of assets 0.05 Ownership of assets Autonomy in production 0 Men Women Men Women Input in productive decisions Malindi Naivasha 22
  • Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-JUHUDI 0.35 GBV attitudes 0.3 Reproductive healthDISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE) Work distribution 0.25 Leisure 0.2 Identity card Speaking in public 0.15 Group membership Control over use of income 0.1 Access to and decisions on credit Purchase or sale of assets 0.05 Ownership of assets 0 Autonomy in production Men Women Men Women Input in productive decisions Taken loan Not taken loan 23
  • Conclusion 1• The gendered empowerment patterns varied with the context, namely, the location of the study and the type of intervention. These patterns should, therefore, not be generalized. E.g. Among resettled IDPs, one is likely to find more empowered women than men. – The domains contributing most to women’s disempowerment were resources and health/rights. Disempowerment in time, leadership and control over income varied with context. E.g. women who took loans through Juhudi were more disempowered in the time and leadership domains than women who did not take loans. – Well meaning interventions could leave some beneficiaries worse off than they were before the intervention. E.g. Women with loans from Juhudi were more disempowered than those without loans in terms of time – Factors that contribute to women’s disempowerment may be similar e.g. KARI study, or different, e.g. Juhudi and EADD, from those that contribute to men’s disempowerment. – To be sure of what factors cause disempowerment, they have to be measured and documented in impact evaluations like this one. 24
  • The 2nd Sub-Index – Gender Parity Index1. This sub-index compares empowerment between men and women in dual adult (MH) households2. It also shows the gap between male heads of households and their spouses where parity is yet to be achieved3. GPI= (1-(% of disempowered women*% gap between them and the households’ primary males)).The score ranges from 0-1. The closer the GPI is to 1 the more the gender parity 25
  • WEAI• WEAI=The weighted sum of projects/programs/country’s/region’s 6DE and GPI• WEAI= ((6DE*0.9) + (GPI*0.1))• Increase in a WEAI score can be achieved through improving the 6DE and GPI scores• The closer the WEAI to 1, the more empowered the women 26
  • Question 2• Do different livelihood interventions contribute differently to women’s empowerment? 27
  • KARI – WEAI Score and GPIComponent Group 6 domains GPI WEAI all WEAI of women WMHH empowerme only nt indexMalindi Women 0.72 0.87 0.74 0.70 Men 0.82Naivasha Women 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.79 Men 0.83 28
  • Juhudi – WEAI Score and GPIComponent Group 6 domains of GPI WEAI all WEAI empowerment women WMHH index onlyTaken loans Women 0.73 0.86 0.74 0.70 Men 0.93Not taken Women 0.70 0.87 0.71 0.71loans Men 0.91 29
  • EADD – WEAI Score and GPIComponent Group 6 domains of GPI WEAI all WEAI empowerme women WMHH nt indexSelling milk Women 0.62 0.82 0.64 0.64through Dairygroups Men 0.87Not selling milk Women 0.60 0.83 0.62 0.62through Dairygroups Men 0.94 30
  • Conclusion 2• Different livelihood interventions can contribute differently to women’s empowerment. – We tested for variations in the extent of empowerment among FHH and WMHH by removing FHH from sample of women used in the WEAI calculation. WEAI for WMHH in Malindi and Naivasha (KARI) reduced; there was no change in WEAI for EADD WMHH selling through groups and other modes, and Juhudi WMHH without loans; but WEAI scores for Juhudi drastically reduced for WMHH with loans. – The finding from KARI (baseline) indicates that FHH were more empowered than WMHH – The finding from EADD suggests that the intervention empowered women from FHH and MHH equally – The finding from Juhudi suggests that the intervention empowered women from FHH, but disempowered women from MHH. This finding can be explained by the fact that women from FHH have full control of their income, but women from MHH tend to lose control of their income share as HH income increases (Njuki et al 2011). Benefits from value chains are determined by a person’s ability to control productive assets and household decisions (Coles & Mitchell, 2011). 31
  • Question 3• How do women perceive themselves in terms of empowerment and how does this self assessment compare with the WEAI measurements? 32
  • CASE STUDIES• Narratives describing individual women’s lives obtained through in depth face to face interviews aiming to establish the women’s definitions of empowerment and their self evaluation of empowerment according to their definition• The case studies respondents were selected from among individual survey respondents by comparing a woman’s self ranking *on her influence in the community] and a more objective index derived from 6 empowerment indicators• The indicators were: 1. Input in decision making capacity around agricultural production 2. Ownership of productive capital/ assets 3. Access to credit 4. Access to extension services 5. Decision making capacity on own income 6. Individual’s leadership and influence in community 33
  • Case Study selection criteriaThree types of cases selected:• Those whose self ranking of empowerment matched the index ranking (e.g. no 16) – spot on• Those whose self ranking was higher than the index ranking (e.g. no 5) – overrated themselves• Those whose self ranking was lower than the index (no 10) - under rated themselves 34
  • 35
  • Miriam’s Empowerment ScoreThe 6DE indicated that Miriam was empowered in 4 out of the 6 domains and her averageweighted score was 67%. She was classified as empowered based on the 6DEMiriam believed she was empowered because she is innovative and able to meet herfamily’s needs 36
  • Maureen’s Empowerment ScoreThe 6DE indicated that Maureen was empowered in 3 out of the 6 domains and in67% of the weighted indicators. She was, classified as empowered according to 6DEMaureen felt she was disempowered because she is not good in public speaking. 37
  • Nancy’s Empowerment ScoreThe 6DE indicated that Nancy was empowered in 2 out of the 6 domains and her averageweighted score was 50%. She was classified as disempowered according to 6DENancy felt she was empowered because she is hardworking, visionary, open minded andwilling to take advice from people that are successful in her areas of weakness. 38
  • Catherine’s Empowerment ScoreThe 6DE indicated that Catherine was only empowered in 1 out of the 6 domains and heraverage weighted score was 39%. She was classified as disempowered according to 6DECatherine believed she was disempowered because she did not have any livestock anddid not belong to a group that gives out loans 39
  • Case Study results-JUHUDICase study Empowerment Empowerment Whether woman is Women’s self Gender paritynumber score of man score of empowered based on assessment based on 6DE woman based 6DE on 6DE 1. 0.67 0.69 Empowered Empowered Achieved 2. - 0.72 Empowered Empowered - 3. (Catherine) 0.92 0.39 Disempowered Disempowered Not achieved 4. 0.78 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved 5. (Nancy) 0.56 0.50 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved 6. 0.83 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved 7. (Miriam) 0.58 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved 8. 0.81 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved 9. 0.58 0.58 Disempowered Empowered Achieved 10. (Maureen) 0.72 0.67 Empowered Disempowered Not achieved • Most empowered women believed that they were empowered. • Most disempowered women believed that they were empowered. • All FHH interviewed from all sites were empowered in terms of 6DE and own rating 40
  • Conclusion 3• There were similarities and differences between women’s empowerment in terms of their self evaluation and evaluation using the index – Empowered women according to the index mostly considered themselves to be empowered using their own measures. Some disempowered women according to the index also appeared to consider themselves empowered using their measure. – Whose measure is right? The index, the women’s own measure, or both? Why? – There is a need to harmonize indicators used by researchers and those used by the women to measure empowerment in order to represent the women’s perceptions 41
  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• FORDFOUNDATION • Respondents from the following counties:• KARI • Naivasha• JUHUDI KILIMO • Malindi • Nandi• EADD • Bomet• KWH • Transzoia• The PGI team at ILRI 42
  • Thank You! 43