Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The gender impacts of the Land O’Lakes -Manica Smallholder Dairy Development          Program (MSDDP)        —preliminary ...
Background Funded by United States Department of  Agriculture (USDA) Location and duration of program: 2009-  2012, Mani...
 Program distributed 500 improved dairy  cows to 327 qualified beneficiary  households and trained 2 members per  househo...
GAAP ResearchHypothesis/Questions for MSDDP1. What direct and indirect benefits and   constraints do women experience in a...
Methods1) Qualitative   - April 2011, 15 single-gender FGDs with members      of 15 of 17 farmer groups   - April 2012 - 6...
2) Quantitative analysis - 3 households surveys conducted:  April, 2009 (LOL), April-May 2011  (GAAP), April-May 2012 (LOL...
Comparison groups For assets we can look at changes  between 2008 and 2011 based on  recall For all other outcome variab...
Outline of results Assets Food security Dairy  production Milk sales and  income
Assets• Qualitative focused on understanding asset  ownership and control• Quantitative: 2 measures  – Total household ass...
Qualitative findings• Men and women use same asset categories—  domestic, productive, transport• In general, people strugg...
• Completion of training increased women’s  self-esteem and confidence  – Their ability to take care of cows was recognize...
Descriptive statistics on assets From 2011 survey, with retrospective asset question                                      ...
Determinants of change in total and women’s share  of assets, 2008-2011                                             Change...
Food security• Participants in qualitative studies perceived  that improved family nutrition was a major  benefit of the p...
Determinants of Months of adequate householdfood provisioningHH received cattle                       2.0155*             ...
Determinants of dietary diversity scoreHH received cattle                              1.8731***              2.0621***   ...
Dairy cow management• Qualitative analysis  looked at who does  what and who makes  decisions• Quantitative analysis  focu...
Key qualitative findings• Dairy activities are gendered, with some  overlap• “Both men and women said that the  introducti...
• Men traditionally make  decisions about cows but  “women are developing an  interest in improved cows”  – Women are gain...
Cost of production and labor for          recipients and non recipient                    households                      ...
Determinants of total dairy costs last month(MZM)HH received cattle                      257.432**                  246.44...
Determinants of household male labor           (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle                    11.4581**      ...
Determinants of household female labor           (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle                    17.991***    ...
Determinants of household child labor             (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle                     14.092***  ...
Milk production and income• Qualitative analysis explored: Who makes  decisions about milk consumption and  sale and who c...
Findings from qualitative• “All milk worth talking about is from  improved cows.”• Morning milk sold to milk collection  c...
Decision maker on dairy income,          2012 survey
Milk sales and income for    recipients and non-recipients                                      Non-recipients     Recipie...
Determinants of liters of milk sold to MCC     village or bartered last month (MZM)HH received cattle                     ...
Determinants of income from milk sales                     (MZM)HH received cattle                       1247.42**        ...
Some conclusions• Overarching: Gender roles are shaped by socio-  cultural, economic and political norms• Assets  – Care m...
• Management  – Male HH heads traditionally make decisions, but there is    evidence that women are getting more involved ...
Thank you!
Land O Lakes GAAP Presentation January 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Land O Lakes GAAP Presentation January 2013

994 views

Published on

Presentation given by Land O Lakes at GAAP final technical workshop in Addis Ababa, January 2013

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Land O Lakes GAAP Presentation January 2013

  1. 1. The gender impacts of the Land O’Lakes -Manica Smallholder Dairy Development Program (MSDDP) —preliminary findings Marinho Nhambeto, Liz Waithanji, Nancy Johnson, Lizz Hutchinson, Martha Rogers, Edna Ogwangi, Mimoso Agostinho GAAP Final Technical Workshop ILRI-Addis Ababa 10 January 2013
  2. 2. Background Funded by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Location and duration of program: 2009- 2012, Manica Province, Mozambique Objectives: 1) rebuild Mozambique’s dairy industry and 2) increase incomes for smallholder farmers in a dairy value chain.
  3. 3.  Program distributed 500 improved dairy cows to 327 qualified beneficiary households and trained 2 members per household in dairy management
  4. 4. GAAP ResearchHypothesis/Questions for MSDDP1. What direct and indirect benefits and constraints do women experience in a gender- blind asset distribution program?2. What decision-making roles do women play in the management of dairy cows?3. Who controls the benefits (milk, income) from the project?
  5. 5. Methods1) Qualitative - April 2011, 15 single-gender FGDs with members of 15 of 17 farmer groups - April 2012 - 6 single-gender FGD from 3 dairy associations in the Vanduzi Dairy Cooperative 2011 Focus Group Discussions Average # Groups Average # Groups Participants- without Cows participants- with Cows Cows (Anticipating) AnticipatingFemale FGD 5 6.8 2 9.5Male FGD 6 7.2 2 12
  6. 6. 2) Quantitative analysis - 3 households surveys conducted: April, 2009 (LOL), April-May 2011 (GAAP), April-May 2012 (LOL+GAAP) - Different populations surveyed in each round. For impact evaluation, we focus on at beneficiary households in 2011 and 2012 rounds
  7. 7. Comparison groups For assets we can look at changes between 2008 and 2011 based on recall For all other outcome variables, the comparison groups are: 1) Received cows vs. still waiting 2) Length of time since cow was received (months) 3) Households that had a woman trained 4) Households where woman was primary trainee
  8. 8. Outline of results Assets Food security Dairy production Milk sales and income
  9. 9. Assets• Qualitative focused on understanding asset ownership and control• Quantitative: 2 measures – Total household assets • Non-land asset index – Women’s share of individually-owned assets • Value of asset index for women/(value for men + value for women)—joint asset no included • Higher means less disparity
  10. 10. Qualitative findings• Men and women use same asset categories— domestic, productive, transport• In general, people struggled to differentiate between ownership, control and use• Most people said that in male-headed households, men make decisions – Decision making powering is “bigger” than claim to ownership – But claim to ownership is one factor that may influence decision-making
  11. 11. • Completion of training increased women’s self-esteem and confidence – Their ability to take care of cows was recognized – Joint decision making with husbands was enhanced
  12. 12. Descriptive statistics on assets From 2011 survey, with retrospective asset question 2008 2011 Non Recipients Non Recipients Recipients Recipients 73.84 84.77 80.16 110.96 Household asset index (n=125 ) (100.10) (92.07) (87.96) (115.73) .39 .13 0.17 .18 Women’s share of assets (n= 125 ) (.92) (.43) (.36) (.33) From beneficiaries in 2011 and 2012 surveys Non Recipients Recipients All beneficiary households Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.DHousehold asset index 80.16 87.96 100.91 100.20 99.04 99.15Women’s share of assets 0.17 0.36 0.21 0.33 0.20 0.33Number of observations 25 198 223
  13. 13. Determinants of change in total and women’s share of assets, 2008-2011 Change in total HH Change women’s share assets of assetsHH received cattle 16.6760** 18.3263*** 0.3514 0.3065 (6.4327) (6.2075) (0.3012) (0.2754)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale 2.3529 -0.0882 (5.6049) (0.1345)Primary dairy trainee was female -2.8895 0.1164 (8.1888) (0.1250)Observations 102 102 63 63 Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  14. 14. Food security• Participants in qualitative studies perceived that improved family nutrition was a major benefit of the program• 2 quantitative measures – # of months of adequate food provisioning – Dietary diversity index – No pre-project baseline data so we compared early v late beneficiaries in 2011 and 2012 surveys Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.DMonths of adequate HH food 10.48 2.24 11.18 1.48 11.10 1.59provisioningHousehold dietary diversity score 5.80 2.61 6.42 2.60 6.35 2.60
  15. 15. Determinants of Months of adequate householdfood provisioningHH received cattle 2.0155* 1.9502* (1.0900) (1.0710)Months since HH received first cow 0.0551** 0.0546** (0.0236) (0.0250)Primary or secondary dairy trainee was -0.2868 -0.2302female (0.4058) (0.3578)Primary dairy trainee was female -0.5537 -0.3955 (0.4206) (0.4072)Observations 163 153 163 153Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  16. 16. Determinants of dietary diversity scoreHH received cattle 1.8731*** 2.0621*** (0.5473) (0.6050)Months since HH received first cow -0.0421 -0.0469 (0.0517) (0.0517)Primary or secondary dairy trainee was female 0.7773 0.5972 (0.6946) (0.8497)Primary dairy trainee was female 0.1567 -0.0526 (1.0005) (1.0373)Observations 163 153 163 153 Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  17. 17. Dairy cow management• Qualitative analysis looked at who does what and who makes decisions• Quantitative analysis focused on total cost and household labor use in dairy
  18. 18. Key qualitative findings• Dairy activities are gendered, with some overlap• “Both men and women said that the introduction of the dairy cow enabled them to become more diligent planners because of its demand on their time.” – Everyone’s responsibilities increased with improved cow – Women may be most affected because they had to stay home more and could not hire help the way men did
  19. 19. • Men traditionally make decisions about cows but “women are developing an interest in improved cows” – Women are gaining authority and decision making power around dairy• At household level women are more concerned with milk quality – Many said the benefit from training related to hygiene
  20. 20. Cost of production and labor for recipients and non recipient households Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.DTotal dairy costs in last month(MZM) 46.56 101.7 581.0 740.3 539.7 725.8Total HH male labor hours ondairy activities 4.50 10.42 18.48 16.04 16.91 16.11Total HH female labor hours ondairy activities 1.15 3.29 18.13 21.33 16.23 20.83Total HH child labor hours on dairyactivities 3.34 10.05 19.27 19.33 17.49 19.18
  21. 21. Determinants of total dairy costs last month(MZM)HH received cattle 257.432** 246.44*** (98.4012) (82.8502)Primary or secondary dairy traineewas female -84.1539 -93.3024 (185.263) (198.960)Months since HH received first cow 10.6395 12.1344 (12.4131) (12.2075)Primary dairy trainee was female 90.0300 132.6012 (365.883) (363.653)Observations 161 152 161 152Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  22. 22. Determinants of household male labor (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle 11.4581** 11.3406** (4.7583) (4.9038)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale -0.3805 1.2055 (3.5829) (3.7896)Months since HH received first cow 0.4406** 0.4577** (0.1817) (0.1929)Primary dairy trainee was female 2.7140 4.4576 (7.2095) (6.4491)Observations 163 153 163 153Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  23. 23. Determinants of household female labor (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle 17.991*** 17.341*** (6.2307) (6.4795)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale -2.7002 2.3768 (4.8822) (3.9246)Months since HH received first cattle 1.8959*** 1.9117*** (0.3022) (0.3163)Primary dairy trainee was female -1.3249 5.7621 (10.7911) (9.3753)Observations 163 153 163 153Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  24. 24. Determinants of household child labor (hours spent on dairy)HH received cattle 14.092*** 14.130*** (4.6111) (4.7187)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale 0.6609 3.1349 (3.8385) (4.2271)Months since HH received first cattle 0.8903*** 0.9711*** (0.2416) (0.2817)Primary dairy trainee was female 13.8598 17.7639 (13.5895) (12.4791)Observations 163 153 163 153Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  25. 25. Milk production and income• Qualitative analysis explored: Who makes decisions about milk consumption and sale and who control income from milk• Quantitative analysis looked at impact on: – Quantity of milk sold – Dairy income – Income control in 2012 (descriptive only)
  26. 26. Findings from qualitative• “All milk worth talking about is from improved cows.”• Morning milk sold to milk collection center (MCC), generally by men• Evening milk consumed or sold locally, generally by women
  27. 27. Decision maker on dairy income, 2012 survey
  28. 28. Milk sales and income for recipients and non-recipients Non-recipients Recipients All beneficiaries Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.DLiters of milk sold or bartered inlast month 4.69 18.75 112.41 154.66 104.00 151.35Money received from milk sales inlast month (MZM) 60.00 232.4 1540.8 2051.8 1430.8 2012.7
  29. 29. Determinants of liters of milk sold to MCC village or bartered last month (MZM)HH received cattle 73.7820*** 75.0157*** (27.5877) (27.4968)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale 8.6903 6.9587 (32.1106) (34.6512)Months since HH received first cattle 0.0196 0.2898 (2.7204) (2.7834)Primary dairy trainee was female 47.0947 50.5377 (54.3564) (56.4264)Observations 158 149 158 149Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  30. 30. Determinants of income from milk sales (MZM)HH received cattle 1247.42** 1244.97** (515.3749) (611.6042)Primary or secondary dairy trainee wasfemale 1053.341** 1019.53** (460.2119) (498.0601)Months since HH received first cattle -11.4963 -14.5877 (34.3267) (34.3921)Primary dairy trainee was female 618.9363 617.5980 (821.3166) (827.2487)Observations 155 147 155 147 Estimates controlled for household and community characteristics
  31. 31. Some conclusions• Overarching: Gender roles are shaped by socio- cultural, economic and political norms• Assets – Care must be taken when interpreting “ownership” data – As expected, receipt of a cow improves households assets. Does not appear to increase gender asset gap. – People say that putting the cow in both names or in woman’s name will have no practical effect but this should be tested• Food security – Receipt of cow seems to have positive impact on food security and nutrition, though mechanisms not clear
  32. 32. • Management – Male HH heads traditionally make decisions, but there is evidence that women are getting more involved in management – Costs increase with high-producing cows • hypothesis that household needs 2-5 improved cows to profitable—this is something to watch in next phase of project – Impacts on women’s labor need to be monitored carefully, especially in early stages of commercialization• Production and income – Production and income increase with receipt of improved cow – Men control most of dairy income – Having a female trainee is associated with higher income, possibly through better milk quality
  33. 33. Thank you!

×