ILRI: Why gender and value chains


Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ILRI: Why gender and value chains

  1. 1. Gender and Value Chains Jemimah Njuki Poverty, Gender and Impact GroupInternational Livestock Research Institute
  2. 2. Why gender and value chains? The agricultural landscape in the region is changing – Agriculture /livestock sector is becoming more technologically sophisticated, commercially oriented and globally integrated – There is evidence however that as it gets more commercialised, smallholder farmers, women, may not be able to compete and benefit due to lower access to resources, capital, capacity and other social barriers – There are tremendous opportunities from these changes if gender equality is integrated into programs /projects aiming to take advantage of emerging markets
  3. 3. Why gender and value chains? Existing gender disparities in access to resources, market participation and capital accumulation– Although about 70% of smallholder farmers are women, they lack secure rights to production resources (land, labor, capital), lower educational levels– Women are more likely to be ‘unserved’ by formal financial– The extent of market participation (especially in formal markets) by women is lower than that of their male counterparts. Women are more likely to sell in informal markets– Adoption rates for new technology innovation among women is lower than for men often making women less competitive
  4. 4. Why gender and value chains? The potential gains from reducing gender disparities• There is evidence that income under the control of women is more likely to be used to improve family welfare – women spend upto 90% of their income on their families, while men spend 30- 40% – strengthening marital bargaining power and "voice" within the household decision-making• If women had the same resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20-30% – raise agricultural output by 2.5-4% and reduce hungry people by 100-150 million
  5. 5. What are the Key Issues and Data Needs?
  6. 6. 1. Men and Women’s Access to Resources and Assets Total • Women and assets: Although domestic % of about 70% of smallholder and livestock farmers are women, they lack livestock to total secure rights to production index index resources (land, labor, Kenya Men 41.01 21.5 capital), lower educational levels Women 16.68 22.5 Joint 60.35 36 • Disaggregated asset andTanzania Men 41.80 46.6 resource ownership data by Women 11.42 18.3 gender Joint 58.47 24.2 • Gender and Asset Module.docx
  7. 7. 2. Men and Women’s Participation MarketsHouseholds Level• Women and men face different constraints as they participate in markets• Patterns of market participation may vary across crops, livestock and products• Women more likely to sell to informal than formal markets (often farm gate)
  8. 8. 2. Men and Women’s Participation MarketsOther markets• Women’s participation in markets along the whole value chain• Women’s participation in trading and labour markets
  9. 9. 3. Types of markets that men and women commonly access• Women more likely to sell at farm gate to other farmers /brokers or Variable Coeff z P>z traders Belong to group• Types of markets influenced be (1=yes) 1.026 2.48 0.013** women’s access to resources, assets to enable them participate Age of spouse 0.017 0.97 0.334 in markets Has communication• Terms of trade in formal markets asset (1=yes) 1.195 2.09 0.037** are not always conducive for Has transport asset women e.g formal payment (1=yes) 1.856 3.26 0.001*** systems that require them to have back accounts Women received training (1=yes) -0.544 -0.9 0.369 Women education=primary 0.104 0.23 0.822 education=post primary 0.483 0.65 0.515 acreage=> 5 acres 0.114 0.28 0.782 dependency ratio=>1 0.476 1.05 0.296 Constant -1.780 -1.83 0.067
  10. 10. 4. Constraints faced by men and women in participating in markets• Reasons for women’s preferences for farm-gate markets – Pay better than sales to brokers /traders – Saves time taken to go to markets – Traders at farm gate often purchase in large amounts and pay in cash – Shops pay poorly and have strict quality requirements – Broker patronage of other markets• Constraints to farm gate markets – Not regular /consistent – Payments not made at time of purchase (especially neighbours) who also often buy in small quantities
  11. 11. 5. Patterns of income management by men, women and jointlyUnitary Household Collective Model Household Model Common welfare Non-Co-operative Cooperative function Pooling of resources Head is altruist Individual autonomy Choice of acting as Individual preferences individuals or joint Sub-economies “mine, yours, ours” Focus of analysis is household level Focus of analysis is individual level
  12. 12. Patterns of income management by men and women • Influenced by – type of product, – total income from product – who sells, – type of market
  13. 13. What influences income management by women • A general trend of a rise in income share by women across the low income commodities which changes with the higher income commodities • high income commodities such as potatoes and pigs showed lower income share by women (some exceptions such as rice) • In the lower income categories, groundnuts and poultry had average incomes below USD 100 per annum and high income shares going to women (43.6% for groundnuts and 52.7% for poultry)
  14. 14. Income management and where sold • Women managed a higher income share when product was sold at farm gate compared to when sold at village markets or delivered to traders • When women sold (physically or did the transaction), they managed a higher income share (for both products and species)
  15. 15. Income management and change of markets Malawi-Active export market orientation-- decline in women’s control of income from the crop as total income (bar) increased. Thus as the beans became more marketable, men tended to get interested and took over.
  16. 16. Implications for research and data collection• Standard approaches of analyzing value chains can often miss the gender and intra-household issues.• Need to look within the households at men and women, and jointness of activities, decisions and incomes• Identify indicators /evaluation criteria from men and women – Separate evaluation and tools between men and women to take into account differences• Who to ask questions, interview?• Disaggregation of data..what data and what level of disaggregation. Household headship is not enough!• Multiple tool (surveys, participatory value chain mapping, case studies, panel studies etc)
  17. 17. Implications for Development• Programs aimed at increasing commercialization or using a value chain approach need to take into account these gender and intra- household dynamics.• Use of data and evidence to inform gender strategies• Gender sensitive value chain or commodity selection and value chain analysis, monitoring and evaluation helps to develop strategies to benefit men and women without undermining the control of these commodities by either
  18. 18. Implications for Development• Indicators for market and value chain projects need to be ‘gendered’ and to go beyond measuring participation and household incomes and focus on distributional impacts• Working with both men and women in market development• Working on multiple value chains and multiple markets (both formal and informal) and• Integrating gender training in market development can mitigate against negative intra-household effects from value chain and market development programs