Does participation of household members in small ruminant management activities vary by agro-ecologies and category of respondents? Evidence from rural Ethiopia
Nov. 27, 2018•0 likes
0 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•216 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Science
Presented by Kinati, W., Mulema, A.A.., Desta, H., Alemu, B. and Wieland, B. at the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research Annual Scientific Conference and Capacity Development Workshop, ILRI, Addis Ababa, 25-28 September 2018
Similar to Does participation of household members in small ruminant management activities vary by agro-ecologies and category of respondents? Evidence from rural Ethiopia(20)
Does participation of household members in small ruminant management activities vary by agro-ecologies and category of respondents? Evidence from rural Ethiopia
Kinati, W., Mulema, A.A.., Desta, H., Alemu, B. and Wieland, B.
CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research
Annual Scientific Conference and Capacity Development Workshop,
ILRI, Addis Ababa, 25-28 September 2018
Does participation of household members in small
ruminant management activities vary by agro-ecologies and
category of respondents? Evidence from Rural Ethiopia
Understand disease priorities and how that affects
individual members of households
Identify and test appropriate interventions
Scaling out, policy recommendations
Introduction: Back Ground
Data taken from Participatory Epidemiology
& Gender Project in Ethiopia
Introduction: Small Ruminants & Gender in Ethiopia
• Small ruminants (SR) ensure food
security for millions of Ethiopian
farmers
• Are integral part of the mixed crop-
livestock & pastoralist farming systems
• Significant gender differentials exist in
Ethiopian agriculture influenced by
socio-cultural, socio-economic and
agro-ecological factors
• However, study on gender roles in SR
production is scanty based on
headship analysis
• Who reports about these roles from
the HH matters a lot and need to be
considered
Research Questions
1. What is the intra-household gender differentials in the
intensity of participation in small ruminant management
activities?
Identify differences in risk of exposure to zoonoses
2. Do respondents agree on how much each of HH members
contributes to small ruminant management? What about level
of participation in terms of agro-ecology?
Design gender-sensitive interventions
Research Design & Sampling Strategy
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs):
• Conducted in 24 sites (Kebeles)
FGDs in separate groups with
men, women, young male,
young female: 92 FGDs in
total
Tools used: Checklist,
proportional scoring, ranking,
seasonal calendar etc.
• Key areas of discussion
Importance of livestock
species
Role of household members
in SR management
Diseases in small ruminants:
clinical & PM signs
Impact of diseases on
different household members
Household survey:
• 430 HHs: following systematic
random sampling.
MHH=236
WHH= 88 &
WMHH=322
(total=646 individuals) enrolled in
37 sites
• Four main regions of Ethiopia:
Amhara: 132HHs,
Oromia: 106HHs,
SNNPR: 96HHs,
Tigray: 96HHs
• From three Agro-ecologies:
Highland= 21 kebeles
Midland= 8 kebeles
Low land= 7 kebeles
Data analysis
• Data entered into Epi info software version 7 and
analysed using SPSS (23).
• Qualitative Data from FGDs were coded &
further synthesized and categorized in to
themes:
linked these themes to the main objectives
of the study
• In addition, for quantitative data descriptive
statistics and analysis of variance conducted.
Findings
List of SR husbandry/
management practices
identified:
Barn Cleaning
Feeding & watering
Breeding
Herding
Assisting delivery
Caring for sick animals
Coordinating vet inputs
Slaughtering and
Marketing
Roles related to small ruminant health
management in Ethiopia
prevent - detect
Findings: Gender Roles in SR management
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Cleaning
Feeding & Watering
Breeding
Marketing
Herding
Caring for sick…
Coordinating Vet…
Slaughtering
Assisting Delivery
3.5
5.9
8.9
12.3
5.4
7.5
10.7
11.7
7.4
9.3
7.3
3.3
4.2
4.6
7.3
5.0
2.8
6.2
2.0
2.8
4.7
2.7
4.1
2.8
2.9
4.3
3.6
2.8
1.8
0.9
0.5
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.5
1.0
2.4
2.3
2.4
0.3
4.6
1.5
0.7
0.8
1.8
Mean Score Out of 20
Men Women YM YF CH
Intensity of participation in SR husbandry/management practices
Barn Cleaning
Daily cleaning and tethering
of animals inside barn
Daily removal of dung from
barn
Commanding others &
monitoring to make sure that
barn is cleaned by someone
assigned
Caring for sick animals
Instruct HH members to
take care of sick animals
Diagnose, separate sick
animals from herd &
monitor them
Feed & water sick animals
Follow up the daily care of
diseased animals
Gender Roles in Livestock Production
Shared
Activities
Un equal Power
relations!
Agreement among respondents on Intensity of participation
N= 646
HH Structure: WHHs have less adult men
members in their family.
Intra HH (Gender disaggregated) analysis!
Intensity of participation by Agro-ecologies
N= 646
None Parametric test suggested that:
Across agro-ecologies, intensity of participation
significantly different (except for young female &
children) for most of the SR activities:
Adult men & women have higher levels of
involvement in high & midland agro-ecologies than
in lowlands (pastoralist systems), whereas for
youth in lowlands than in the high & midland areas
Conclusions & Implications
The SR activities considered are composed of different sub-activities – where
gender differentials can be clearly observed understand local meanings.
Looking at Gender roles at higher level of husbandry practices/activities
is misleading.
Women’s role are more in the production activities while men’s are in the
activities involving businesses & decisions men control the political
aspects of SR management activities.
Adult men and women respondents in MHHs tends to agree on the gender
roles but in contrary to the adult women in WHHs.
– Headship based analysis & reporting is misleading.
The observed gender differences in participation could disproportionately
expose HH members to the risk of zoonotic diseases
Target women & youth:- e.g. women might be ideally placed for early
detection of diseases and could also play an important role in provision
of animal health services.
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock
livestock.cgiar.org
The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock aims to increase the productivity of productivity of livestock agri-food
systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and eggs more available and affordable across the developing world.
This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
The program thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the
CGIAR system
Editor's Notes
Because: Having knowledge on gender roles in SR activities is helpful for targeting and aiding the design and implementation of interventions. For instance, identifying who is responsible for specific livestock husbandry practices may reveal who within the household is best placed to observe clinical signs of animal health problems (Curry et al. 1996 in WB/FAO/IFAD, 2009).
The Focus Group Discussions were mainly used to define the Operational variables used for the analysis!
Highland= (2,300 - 3,200masl); midland = (1,500 - 2,300masl) & lowland =(500 - 1,500masl)
Sampling Strategy: For sample size determination, Epi Info 7 sample size and power for population survey was employed to identify a total of 430 households (MHHs and WHHs) - i.e.132 from Amhara, 106 from Oromia, 96 from SNNPR, and 96 from Tigray regions.
Data Collection Techniques: The interviews was administered in such a way that, for the randomly selected MHHs, if the first respondent from the first MHH was male, the respondent in the second randomly selected MHH was a spouse. Moreover, we also asked spouses to respond to certain sections of the questionnaire. This was done in order to capture the views of women in male headed households (WMHHs).
Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test allows one to compare location equality for three or more groups and it is found to be one of the most useful available hypothesis testing procedures for behavioural and social science research. It is also a relatively popular method and mostly used by researchers as it provides valid analyses under conditions where the data are non-normal but other criteria are met (Meyer et al, 2011).
Synthesis: This includes open coding, focused coding and axial coding. And then the codes were further synthesized and categorized in to themes and linked these themes to the main objectives of the study.