Harvest Plus GAAP Presentation January 2013

1,064 views

Published on

Presentation given by Harvest Plus at GAAP final technical workshop in Addis Ababa, January 2013

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,064
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Harvest Plus GAAP Presentation January 2013

  1. 1. Bargaining Power and Biofortification: The Roleof Gender in Adoption of Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato in Uganda Daniel O. Gilligan, Neha Kumar, Scott McNiven, J.V. Meenakshi, Agnes Quisumbing GAAP Workshop, Addis Ababa, January 2012
  2. 2. GAAP Partner Organizations
  3. 3. Gender and BiofortificationHarvestPlus is promoting biofortification as a strategy to reducemalnutrition (e.g., vitamin A deficiency (VAD); iron deficiency) – strategy: breed staples crops to be a rich source of missing micronutrients like iron, vitamin A, and zinc – potential: sustainable in rural areas, self-targeting toward the poor, cost-effective over timeSuccess of biofortification depends on widespread adoption andconsumption of new crop varieties. Gender may be important: – women provide much of the on-farm labor in Africa and elsewhere and are primarily responsible for child diets – there is often a complex dynamic of intrahousehold gender relations for crop choice (von Braun, Puetz and Webb, 1989)• New research addresses constraints to crop technology adoption, but with limited attention to gender (Conley and Udry, 2010; Suri, 2011)
  4. 4. An Evaluation of Biofortification in Uganda• HarvestPlus Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato (OSP) Project • disseminate provitamin-A-rich OSP as a strategy to increase vitamin A intakes and reduce vitamin A deficiency • OSP vines given to 10,000 households in Uganda in 2007, followed by agriculture, nutrition and marketing trainings, using more intensive (Model 1) and less intensive (Model 2) strategies• The IFPRI/HarvestPlus/CIP evaluation • randomized, controlled trial • baseline & endline surveys, 2007- 2009, qual study 2011 • n=1,472 households • outcomes: OSP adoption, dietary intakes of vitamin A, serum retinol
  5. 5. Key Findings of OSP Evaluation: 1. Impact on OSP Adoption in 2009 Model 1 Impact: Model - Control Model 2 M1: 64 % *** M2: 57 % *** Control Cultivated OSP 0 20 40 60 80 %• Project resulted in a 57-64 % point increase in OSP adoption• Project increased the share of OSP in total sweet potato (SP) area by 41 to 46 % points
  6. 6. 2. Prevalence of Inadequate Vitamin A Intakes, Uganda 100 M1-C: -34%** M1-C: -1% M1-C: -36%** 90 M2-C: -31%** M2-C: -5% M2-C: -26%** 80 70 60% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Model 1 Model 2 Control Model 1 Model 2 Control Model 1 Model 2 Control Young children Reference children Women Baseline Follow up •Prevalence of inadequate vitamin A intakes (Hotz et al., 2012) •Fell 33% for young children (age 6-35 months) •Fell 26-36% for adult women •Impact on reference children age 3-5 years shows no effect due to improvement in control group
  7. 7. 3. Impact on Vitamin A Status• Estimated impact on prevalence of low serum retinol (retinol<1.05μmol/L) in blood samples for children age 3-5 at baseline or for adult women (Hotz et al., 2012)• For children with low serum retinol at baseline • significant reduction in prevalence of low serum retinol at endline by 9.5 percentage points • vitamin A intake from OSP was positively associated with vitamin A status (p<0.05)• Women: project had no impact on low serum retinol• Summary: broad adoption of OSP substantially increases vitamin A intakes and can reduce prevalence of low serum retinol in children
  8. 8. What is the role of gender in OFSP adoption?1. What roles do women and men play in the intrahousehold decision-making process to adopt OSP? • Using data on which household members control each land parcel, we explore gender-based differences in where OSP is planted2. Is OSP adoption more common in households in which women have stronger bargaining power ? • Effect could be driven by women’s role in managing child diets • Women were exclusively targeted for nutrition trainings, so may have better information about the returns to adopting OSP • We address question 2 first in a household-level model of OSP adoption
  9. 9. Female bargaining power: asset ownership Table 1: Gender differentiation in asset ownership at baseline, 2007 Female Male Joint exclusive exclusive ownership ownership ownership Share of value of land 0.161 0.591 0.248 owned, 2007 Share of value of nonland 0.219 0.488 0.308 assets owned, 2007 By District Land, 2007 Kamuli 0.204 0.457 0.349 Bukedea 0.108 0.739 0.154 Mukono 0.182 0.550 0.268 Nonland assets, 2007 Kamuli 0.215 0.402 0.400 Bukedea 0.164 0.623 0.227 Mukono 0.281 0.420 0.317• Women have exclusive ownership to 16.1% of land, 21.9% of other assets• Joint ownership of assets is limited to 25-30% overall
  10. 10. Role of bargaining power in household adoption of OSP Table 2: Household-level model of OSP adoption, controlling for women’s asset ownership at baseline All project Female headed Male headed Dep. Var.: Pr(Adopt OFSP) households households households Share of land exclusively 0.038 0.365* -0.011 owned by women, 2007 (0.070) (0.217) (0.076) Share of nonland assets exclusively -0.029 -0.540** 0.032 owned by women, 2007 (0.069) (0.232) (0.074) Notes: Seasonal random effects model including large set of household control variables. * significant at the 10% level; **significant at the 5% level.• Generally, the share of assets exclusively owned by women or by men does not affect the household decision to grow OSP in a given season• In female-headed households, the share of exclusively owned... • ...land assets: weakly increases OSP adoption • ...nonland assets: decreases OSP adoption
  11. 11. Intrahousehold crop choice decisions "Who decided what to grow on this parcel?" 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Females only 0.5 Males only 0.4 0.3 Joint, females first 0.2 Joint, males first 0.1 0 Full sample Kamuli Bukedea Mukono• Women alone make the crop choice decisions for 20% of land parcels• 75% of crop choice decisions are joint, but men may receive priority in as much as 80% of those decisions “Separate plots are not always good for the well being and unity of the family. A family can only progress if there’s cooperation between husband and wife.” --male FGD participant in Kamuli
  12. 12. Gender control of land parcels and OSP Table 4: Gender of parcel control and OSP adoption Dep Var: Grow OSP on this Unconditional All Parcels If household• Naïve models (1) parcel (1) (2) adopts OSP and (2), ignore Parcel control: female only 0.055 0.005 -0.025 links in adoption (0.021)*** (0.005) (0.030) decisions across Parcel control: male only -0.080 -0.132 -0.211 (0.055) (-0.132)** (0.053)*** parcels Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.112 0.063 0.032 (0.025)*** (0.063)*** (0.027)• Plots jointly Ln expenditure per adult equ. 0.020 0.020 controlled, with (0.020)* (0.015) women leading Vitamin A knowledge, 2007 0.046 0.016 decision- (0.046)*** (0.020) Change in vit A knowledge 0.041 0.024 making, are (0.041)*** (0.014)* most likely to Share of SP in land area, 2007 0.226 0.085 have OSP (0.226)*** (0.052) Land area controlled, 2009 -0.062 -0.066• Conditional on (-0.062)*** (0.011)*** HH Land parcel area, 2009 0.135 0.151 (0.135)*** (0.021)*** adoption, male Ln farmer group size -0.114 -0.014 controlled plots (-0.114)* (0.063) are least likely to Land tenure is freehold -0.169 -0.305 have OSP (-0.169)* (0.340) Observations 5723 5032 3138
  13. 13. Correlated decisions across parcels Table 5: OSP adoption, correlated decisions across parcels• Controlling for Incl. Other Household correlation of Parcel Fixed decisions across Dep Var: Grow OSP on this Controls Effects parcels weakens parcel (1) (2) significance of Parcel control: female only -0.077 -0.124 effects (0.052) (0.247) Parcel control: male only -0.292 -0.656• Acknowledge that (0.098)*** (0.345)* gender of control Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.091 0.232 over parcels is not (0.046)** (0.191) fixed; still need to No. other parcels: female only -0.088 account for this (0.022)*** No. other parcels: male only -0.035• Cannot yet (0.024) identify whether No. other parcels: joint, female 1st -0.133 effects are gender (0.016)*** differences in No. other parcels: joint, male 1st -0.116 preferences, (0.012)*** information or Observations 5032 4490 specialization Notes: Other control variables not reported.
  14. 14. Women’s assets, parcel control and OSP adoption Table 7: OSP adoption by female ownership of nonland assets• Households in High share of which women have Low share of female lower asset female ownership of ownership are ownership of nonland more likely to grow Dep Var: Grow OFSP on this nonland assets assets OSP on joint plots parcel (1) (2) with women in Parcel control: female only 0.032 -0.036 primary control (0.049) (0.035) Parcel control: male only -0.085 -0.198 (0.065) (0.082)**• Where female Parcel control: joint, female 1st 0.097 0.021 share of assets is (0.029)*** (0.032) higher, decision- Observations 2377 2655 making on joint Notes: Other control variables not reported. plots appears more egalitarian, but OSP adoption is lower on male- controlled plots
  15. 15. Closing Points• Need to understand how men’s and women’s control of land and assets affect adoption of new technologies• This is especially important for agricultural technologies that have the potential for improving nutrition• For learning purposes, experiment with providing access to nutrition trainings between women and men, or between women and both together

×