Tanzania phase ii_v2

494 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
494
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
99
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Smallholder agriculture has low and falling land and labour productivity: 70% of crop area cultivated by hand hoe, 20% by ox plough; agriculture is mostly rain fed and facing frequent droughts. The government and many donor, NGOs, religious organisations and other projects have projects to support SHA. Publically supported ag credit depend on collateral, so are biased towards men. Cooperative Unions appear to be reaching more smallholders with credit more than marketing… less than 5% of male-headed hholds sell produce through coops, assocs and selling under contract… and support on marketing have worked even less well for ♀. So All smallholders have low access to technology, finance and marketing mechanisms… but women are worse-off. Gender-disaggregated data is only available as those households headed by women, which is clearly inadequate. Women were 56% of crop producers in 1997according to TZ Gender & Networking Programme; and the TZ government counted women as 80% of the agricultural labour force. Only 12% of male-headed households have women who own land, and although 50% of women-headed households own land, they own an average of 1.6 hectares, only 60% of the average men’s holdings. The credit that women source is mostly from family and friends, with only 15% of their credit coming from Cooperative Unions, while male smallholder families get 38% of their credit from Cooperative Unions. Women and men participate together and fairly equally in many aspects of crop production, however men dominate in selling
  • Traditional and informal CA for agricultural production is both mixed and women-only and continues to provide social support and safety net functions.After independence in 1961 – and the Ujamaa movement set up primary societies, with second-tier Co-operative Unions and federations. Most SH farmers participated, with a bias towards men. The new types of CA – often donor-led, externally funded initiatives tend to have conditions for significant or majority women’s participation, which explains some of the high percentages found by this study. However, women’s membership in Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives was still estimated to be only 10% in 2008. Savings and credit groups and unions are significant. These newer organisations have also engaged in policy advocacy.
  • The two regions where the research was conducted areShinyanga and TangaShinyanga is more drought prone, has poorer infrastructure, fewer crop options, and is distant from major markets. Tanga is here – coastal, higher rainfall and more productive agriculturally. It’s closer to major markets.The second column shows the districts chosen for study, based on land area for the particular product and the proportion of agricultural households involved in the sector. The top is Shinyanga, and the shaded ones are in Tanga. The third column shows the number of CA groups identified, and then the number of groups studied. More groups identified in the former, with the large number of chicken producer groups probably due to Oxfam’s programme investment in local chicken.
  • The typology of collective action is fairly consistent across the sub-sectors, with a some notable exceptions. You’ll see the dominant types in green… The groups are multi-purpose groups: engaging in collective action on irrigation water and finance (for example) as well as production of the specific product, and even working collectively on production in other sub-sectors. This is in contradiction to the common assumption among development actors that it is more efficient to SPECIALISE in one sector. The exception here are the Allanblackia groups – organised around a single value chain (single buyer) for an high value export crop.The vast majority are mixed groups, not women-only. Development actors have promoted women’s participation, so that women are often the majority of mixed groups, however women-only groups are few – only 4 here. Most groups are formalised – which links to the fourth characteristic, which is that most groups (all but 7 studied) are externally-supported. The exceptions are the vegetable sub-setor and maize, where there are more informal collective action groups. Local chicken has 4 self-driven producer groups.
  • This is an example of a Gendered map of the Allanblackia sub-sector and collective action within that sub-sector. The Allanblackia tree grows in forests, and the fruits have seeds that can be dried for making oil – used to be used for home consumption, now for commercial and industrial purposes. A single buyer – the Novel Development Tanzania Ltd is buying the product at selling centres they’ve established, for processing and export. Allanblackia fruits are still collected from the forest, however some farmers have begun to plant their own trees.Traditionally Allanblackiacollection and drying was women’s work – now women and men have been trained to improve the quality of seeds, through better collection, sorting and drying techniques. This has enabled producers to get better prices. Collective action groups have also reduced transport problems. Mixed groups (vs. women-only groups) alleviate some problems of delays in payment by buyer, and lack of trust/jealousy by the men.Women have gained entrepreneurial skills, and share more market information through discussions at meetings. Yet, Increased tree planting is likely to increase men’s control of the product, as women lack land ownership. … more
  • this MAPPING of collective action in the local chicken market shows women and men working together in primary production, bulking and trading at the village and district level. - There are both individual chicken producers and those organised in groups. Some producer groups raise chickens individually and some have a common flock and share proceeds. Traditionally women - and women continue to do most of the basic care of chickens, but Oxfam has promoted mixed producer groups.CA has been mostly around improving productivity through training and vaccinations… vaccination must happen with a large number of chickens, as one bottle of vaccine serves many!The CA is multi-function: training & technical assistance, inputs (vaccine) , savings and credit Primary Bulking is done by middlemen, and mostly by bicycle, which means it’s men. Secondary bulking is by vehicle. No collective action (yet) around processing – chickens are sold live, so no value added. There’s an example of construction of collection centre – in order to improve bargaining power and trading through market committees. … more
  • This is primary analysis of gender/collective action and benefits in the chicken sub-sector – with CA mostly at production level.[Constraints: Women have low K base, low bargaining power, lack market information and have transport problems… they sell mostly from the household level.] Benefits:1. VOICE and leadership - Decision-making in the groups is both men and women, AND where the savings groups co-exist, women are more active in participation and influencing group decisions. 2. Finance: Women are able to access savings and internal lending through their involvement in the chicken producer groups. Women expressed a preference for CA with savings/credit included and clear rules.3. Improved production: women access technical training, build skills, lower disease through vaccinations4. Women have more market information because of meeting regularly and sharing information. Women have done collective production of other products…5. The economic benefits are mostly through improved production and lower risk/cost… not through value addition or commanding higher prices. Bulking and trading collective action present many barriers for women because of the conflicts with household duties.The plan for collection centres will increase bargaining power in selling and help women access new roles in bulking and trading.
  • In the vegetable sub-sector … Women in CA are involved in production, packaging and transport for sale as well as some processing. A women-only group deals with veg and fruit processing and marketing, not production. we find a number of constraints for individual women can be overcome by participation in collective action – especially mixed groups. Mixed groups overcome issues of transport, finance and market information. It was observed that indiv women AND women in the women-only group are more constrained by their husbands because they think women will collude and misbehave. So being in a mixed group helps…However women said they’d like to be in a women-only group because they will be free in discussing matters… and it appears, more motivated to work!
  • This table compares ranking of benefits of CA by participants in each of the sub-sectors.The differences in ranking of benefits are in part due to the type of CA - the different objectives of the development agency that promotes or facilitates the group, and the activities of the group … for example whether there was CA in transportation or in finance. Ranking of benefits also varies by sector. It is clear that access to quality inputs, training and technical advice were often the highly ranked benefits (though sectors with fewer inputs ranked them lower!). thus local chicken values inputs very highly (vaccines) and Maize the technical advice, but not higher income, as maize marketing is not part of the CA. , along with social support. Building assets varied considerably by sector.
  • Women still face a number of barriers to engaging in CA – these four were found consistently…
  • IN TZWomen perceive clear benefits from CA – that varies depending on the purpose and activities of the group. Social support, leadership skills, voice are consistently mentioned, even if not the top of the list in ranking. The knowledge and technical advice also spreads to non-membersThe economic benefits are mostly due to improving production and lowering costs, rather than accessing higher prices through bulking, marketing and value added, though there is great potential for this. There is some evidence of building assets through selling smaller animals to buy larger ones, and savings used to buy household furniture etc. Women may prefer women-only groups, yet mixed groups are perceived to better overcome certain barriers like transport, market information – as well as facilitating men’s trust in women being mobile and involved outside the home. Members may participate opportunistically in a number of groups the typology of groups was multi-functional groups, rather than specialised, mixed groups , formal and externally supported.
  • FILL IN…________________________________________________________________Phase II Key outcomes: At the end of this we expect to better understand: The different types of collective action in which women engage in agricultural marketsIn which sub-sectors, and around which activities women’s collective action is more present The benefits which women perceive from their engagement in collective action in agricultural markets - as well as any challenges or costs they face – and their motivationsIn particular, whether and how this collective action is helping women to overcome barriers to their engagement in marketsWhether and how this varies, by sub-sector, or type of group (e.g. mixed vs. women only)
  • Tanzania phase ii_v2

    1. 1. Phase II Findings - Tanzania<br />Thalia Kidder <br />June 15, 2011<br />(presenting for Evelyne Lazaro, Christopher Magomba, John Jeckoniah, Joseph Masimba)<br />1<br />
    2. 2. TZ Smallholder Agriculture & Women<br /><ul><li> Low productivity – low technology
    3. 3. External Interventions:
    4. 4. Finance - Cooperative Unions, projects,
    5. 5. Minimal formal marketing </li></ul> (4.7% male-headed households, 2.8% female-headed) <br /><ul><li>Women
    6. 6. 56% crop production; 80% agr labour force
    7. 7. Women do majority of work; men dominate selling
    8. 8. Land: 12%♀ owners in ♂-headed; 1.6 vs. 2.7 ha
    9. 9. Finance -♀ source 42% from family; 15% unions; 11%SCA</li></ul>2<br />
    10. 10. History & Context of Collective Action<br /><ul><li>Traditional collective action – safety nets, social support
    11. 11. Formal rural producer organisations – state- promoted, most SH hholds – Co-operative Unions
    12. 12. New types of CA: donor-funded, government, NGO, and religious – donor conditions to promote women’s participation
    13. 13. E.g. District Agricultural Sector Investment Project
    14. 14. 2004: 44 projects, 6,000 producer groups; 250k members.
    15. 15. MVIWATA – the National Network of Farmers’ Groups in Tanzania – 1000 groups. </li></ul>3<br />
    16. 16. Regions, districts and communities<br />4<br />Shinyanga and Tanga<br />Regions<br />Total groups; # studied<br />
    17. 17. Analysis: Typology of CA<br />5<br />
    18. 18. 6<br />consumers in export markets<br />Processing Allanblackia into oil for home consumption* ♀<br />Collection of Allanblackia from forest ♀<br />Drying ♀<br />Marketing initiatives, training <br />Collection of Allanblackia from forest<br />Primary production (e.g. nursery beds & planting ♂♀<br />Consumers in export markets<br />Consumers in Local markets<br />Drying ♂♀<br />Transporting ♂♀<br />Processing<br />Gendered map: Allanblackia Sub-sector<br />
    19. 19. Map of Collective Action: Local Chicken <br />7<br />
    20. 20. Gendered Benefits of Collective Action – local chicken<br />8<br />
    21. 21. Constraints & Benefits of Collective Action: Vegetables <br />9<br />
    22. 22. Comparing benefits of CA across sectors<br />10<br />
    23. 23. Barriers to women engaging in CA<br /><ul><li> Inadequate finance for shares or entry fee
    24. 24. Low level of literacy
    25. 25. Household responsibilities – ‘time poverty’
    26. 26. Restrictions imposed by husbands (e.g. mobility)</li></ul>11<br />
    27. 27. Key findings<br /><ul><li>Women benefit from collective action
    28. 28. Income benefits due to lower costs, risks;
    29. 29. (but) CA not accessing higher prices, little valued added or marketing, despite potential
    30. 30. Mixed groups help women overcome restrictions placed by husbands, transport etc.
    31. 31. Training benefits spread to non-members
    32. 32. CA is multi-functional ; members participate opportunistically in various groups.</li></ul>12<br />
    33. 33. Recommendations for Phase III<br /><ul><li> Research:
    34. 34. Quantify benefits and costs of CA for women
    35. 35. Relative benefits of different forms of CA
    36. 36. Interventions:
    37. 37. Identify gaps in current interventions, how to fill?
    38. 38. How to promote WCA along the value chain?
    39. 39. The proposed focus: in Tanga, vegetables, and in Shinyanga, local chicken.</li></ul>13<br />

    ×