Filling the Gaps: Impacts of farmers group learning process on empowerment and gender equality in Sulawesi, Indonesia
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•23 views
This presentation was given by Elok Ponco Mulyoutami (WAC), as part of the Annual Scientific Conference hosted by the CGIAR Collaborative Platform for Gender Research. The event took place on 5-6 December 2017 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where the Platform is hosted (by KIT Royal Tropical Institute). Read more: http://gender.cgiar.org/gender_events/annual-scientific-conference-capacity-development-workshop-cgiar-collaborative-platform-gender-research/
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Filling the Gaps: Impacts of farmers group learning process on empowerment and gender equality in Sulawesi, Indonesia
Similar to Filling the Gaps: Impacts of farmers group learning process on empowerment and gender equality in Sulawesi, Indonesia (20)
More from IFPRI-PIM
More from IFPRI-PIM (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Filling the Gaps: Impacts of farmers group learning process on empowerment and gender equality in Sulawesi, Indonesia
- 1. Filling the gaps Impacts of farmers group learning process on empowerment and gender equality in Sulawesi, Indonesia Elok Mulyoutami, James M Roshetko, Pratiknyo Purnomosidhi, Mahrizal
- 2. Background ▪ Agroforestry and forestry: linking knowledge to action is a project establishing diverse agroforestry across a gradient of land use ▪ Project strategy to improve natural resources and agricultural awareness, access to inputs and management skill of the poor community through Farmer LearningGroup (FLG) ▪ Explicitly focused on gender and social differentiation issues to ensure both men and women participate in decision making and improved rights and access to resources ▪ The needs to demonstrated FLG approach leads to impact on gender empowerment
- 3. Framework - Global mandate on empowering women and reducing gender inequalities – how to measure? - A good method to compare how empowered men and women in agricultural/agroforestry context - Adapted Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (or WEAI) that was developed by USAID, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. - Methods to identify specific opportunities and constraint in men and women’s empowerment and inclusion in agricultural sectors - WEAI Focus in five dimensions (Production, Resources, Income, Leadership, Time use) but for this research, we add ‘knowledge and skill’ as other important dimension
- 4. Framework:Women’s Empowerment in Agricultural Index Time Production Resource Empowerment Knowledge and skill Production reflecting contribution to work on several main livelihood source and decision on agricultural production, livestock husbandry, cash crops and others Resources refers to the ownership of production resources on land, livestock, agricultural equipment and decision making on selling and buying those Income shows the acknowledgement of their involvement on producing income from some livelihood sources and sole or joint control over the use of income or spending their money Leadership reflecting the membership and level of liveliness of people participate in public or community group and also the ability or their confidence in public speaking Time refers to time allocation for productive and domestic and also level of satisfaction on their leisure time. Knowledge and skills reflecting the ability and knowledge improvement of people on agriculture/agroforest management as pest and disease, grafting, garden maintenance, and how to improve crop productivities. This also relates to people ability and willingness to share their new knowledge to other people out of their household.
- 5. About Farmer’s learning group ▪ Smallholder group to learn how to ▪ Produce high quality planting material ▪ Practicing better farm management ▪ Running a small farm business - Self formed based on spontaneously and voluntarily – composition group can be homogenous or mixed (both men and women) - Encouraging but not coercing women to involve - Regular visit from the facilitator (once per month)
- 6. Research Methods Province District Sub District Village for observation N of respondent on HHS N of In- depth Interview and observation F M Total F M Total South Sulawesi Jeneponto Rumbia Jenetalassa, Kassi, Pallantikang 14 20 34 4 2 6 Gowa Tampobulu Garing, Cikoro 15 19 34 2 2 4 Southeast Sulawesi Konawe Selatan Lalembuu Atari Indah, Atari Jaya Lambodi Jaya, Padaleu Patuho Jaya, Sumber Jaya 24 20 44 2 2 4 Wolasi Ambesinauwi, Amoito Jaya, Aunupe, Ranowila, Wolasi 23 22 45 2 3 5 Total 76 81 157 8 6 14 ▪ Sampling methods: composition of farmers participate in FLG and non FLG ▪ Potentials confounding variables: economic status and level of respondent activeness reduced by random selection of respondents ▪ In-depth interview and observation (adapted Ethnographic approach) to get some stories unique to time and places
- 7. Who is more empowered?
- 8. Empowerment score for each farmers characteristics Empowerment score FLG Non FLG All Women Men All Women Men All Women Men All Number of observation (n) 37 46 83 39 35 74 76 81 157 Number of individual who are empowered (nemp) 35 45 80 32 29 61 67 74 141 Headcount ratio of empowered people (Hemp) 0.95 0.98 0.96 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.90 Intensity of empowerment (Iemp) 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.87 0.85 M1 or Empowerment score (Hemp x Iemp) 0.80 0.87 0.84 0.67 0.69 0.68 0.73 0.79 0.76 Women’s empowerment in agricultural index FLG Non FLG All WEAI (0.5 x 5DE + 0.5 x GPI) 0.88 0.83 0.75
- 9. Empowerment score for each dimension Female Male Values FLG (n = 37) Non FLG (n = 39) Sig FLG (n=46) Non FLG (n=33) Sig Production 0.15 0.13 - 0.16 0.15 - Income 0.15 0.15 - 0.16 0.16 - Leadership 0.15 0.11 Sig 0.16 0.12 Sig Resources 0.14 0.15 - 0.15 0.14 - Knowledge and Skill 0.12 0.07 Sig 0.12 0.09 Sig Time 0.11 0.13 - 0.12 0.13 -
- 10. Leadership 0.86 0.96 0.97 0.93 Female Male Speaking in public Female Male Activities in public group 0.64 0.74 0.77 0.66 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 FLG non FLG
- 12. Are they equal?
- 13. Gender parity index differences Gender Parity Index FLG Non FLG All n (number of dual-adult household) 72 65 137 n Women not achieving gender parity 14 7 21 % Women achieving gender parity 81% 89% 85% Average Empowerment Gap (IGPI) 0.22 0.15 0.45 Women with no gender parity (HGPI) 0.19 0.11 0.15 Gender Parity Index (1 - HGPI x IGPI) 0.96 0.98 0.93
- 14. Average gaps of empowerment score between men and women based on their involvement in FLG Who are involve in FLG? Who are empowered? (A) Husband and Wife (B) only Husband (C ) only Wife (D) None Grand Total Both Man and Woman Women’s score 0.93 0.76 0.80 0.75 0.87 Gaps -0.16 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.12 n 39 13 5 54 111 Man Women’s score 0.43 0.34 0.50 0.40 0.41 Gaps 0.50 0.56 0.10 0.36 0.45 N 6 8 1 6 21 Woman Women’s score 1.00 0.60 0.87 Gaps 0.90 0.30 0.50 N - - 1 2 3 None Women’s score 0.15 0.15 Gaps 0.25 0.25 n - - - 2 2 Total Women’s score 0.76 0.51 0.77 0.62 0.79 Gaps 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.15 0.18 n 45 21 7 64 137
- 15. Farmers statements Mr. A04, Aunupe, Konawe Selatan, Southeast Sulawesi My wife is only know about domestic issue… I used to share the result of the training that I attend, but she is not really interested on that… so I just keep the new knowledge that I got from the training only for my self. Mrs. B05, Kassi,Jeneponto, South Sulawesi Taking care domestic work make me very busy… I don’t easily understand how to manage the garden, so I rarely speak to my husband to talk about the garden maintenance Mrs. B06, Managing tree and crop garden is usually my husband business… I just busy with domestic thing
- 16. Farmers statements Mr and Mrs AB01, Palantikang, Jeneponto, South Sulawesi Husband says: We need to discuss first before we decide what we need to do in our daily activities… We have four garden in 4 locations… two locations quite far from here… but the other two is close… We need to know what exactly the type of work that we need to do… and after that we can discuss which location we need to work… based on our time and capability… If we need to attend community meeting or training, we will discuss who should attend… if the work in the garden is more suitable for me, so my wife who will attend the meeting… vice versa… Wife says: Occasionally, we go to the field garden together, and do the work together. If the garden location is far, we will bring some food from home… Only on the certain time we need to work alone, for example if we have visitor, FLG activities, and there are some particular work that need specific task to do… we will work alone in different location… All work is lighter if we done together, so everything needs to be planned together…
- 17. FLG may induced social transformation • Changing roles has occurred as a result of improved communication between men and women within household • Women’s preference are well acknowledge before they making decision • Changing roles may of result from improved mutual assistance between men and women within the community in both field and domestic work
- 18. Thank you
Editor's Notes
- Across the board, men having significantly higher empowerment score than women (T-test with p-value 0.04). Men and women who involved in FLG having relatively higher empowerment score. Differences among the men who involve in FLG and who are not are statistically significant different, but difference among the women is not significant. Nearly 90% of respondent attain empowerment score more than 0.6 (from the highest score is 1) that we defined as empowered. Farmer who are involved in FLG but not categorized as empowered is about 3.6% while who are not involved in FLG is about 17.6% Empowerment score (6D) obtained by multiplying the ratio of individual achieved empowerment (headcount ratio - H) with an average empowerment value or adequacy of empowered individual (empowerment intensity - I). The formula is as follows: H6D = h (headcount ratio) / n (number of empowered individual observed) Empowerment intensity or I6D = 𝑖=1 𝑘 𝑋 𝑖 𝑛 Where, x is the value of all individual empowerment or adequacy score (I), and n is the number of empowered individuals Empowerment Score (6D) = I6D x H6D
- Involvement in FLG performing people with high empowerment score. Further reviewing each dimension composing the score as presented in the tabel, dimension of knowledge and skill as well as leadership have significant contribution to the score. This is supporting elucidation of Mulyoutami (2015) on her finding in other district that FLG involvement could increase their confidence and knowledge, in particular for women. Under this condition, couples could easily share knowledge and skill related to farming practices. The learning process was not limited to the person attending the FLG but also flowed to the spouse.
- Leadership, as a dimension, was appraised based on the involvement of respondents in community groups. Not only in the group related to agricultural activity, but also a group that is associated with the entire community activities, such as in religious groups, social groups such as arisan (social gathering due to rotating-saving), and also other formal groups established by the government or agencies or community organizations. The liveliness involvement of respondent in any community groups were also taken into account, whether it’s active as board member or just passive. Second sub-dimension is the ability to speak in public, whether they just confidence to speak in homogenous or heterogeneous groups. Leadership of smallholder involve in FLG is higher. For women, the activeness of their involvement in some community groups contribute higher to their leadership skill, while for men, they have more confidence to be able to speak in public, both in homogenous and heterogenous group. Men and women involve in the group have more chance to speak in public and sometimes share their experience to other farmers, therefore they confidence is better than the one who not fully involve in the group. Women were more confidence speak in homogenous group, this is in line with finding of Listiorini (2005) on her study in eastern part of Indonesia. Women were more active in community groups rather than man, both they are FLG farmers or non FLG. Religious groups and social gathering were usually consist of women rather than men, and they usually have regular activities or meeting. Men are usually involve in more formal groups or some inactive or less active community group. Increment of leadership skill within 5 years period behind is 30% and 20%, for FLG and non FLG respectively. For FLG, increment of men’s leadership (25%) slightly higher than woman (24%) and both are still relatively higher than non FLG. This data indicate that involvement in FLG have compelling impact in improving the leadership for both men and women.
- This is particulary relates to producing high quality planting material (grafting), know and understand about pest and disease management, improving crop productivity through better fertilizing techniques, and better plants/garden management e.g. pruning and weeding. In the surveys, all respondent required to provide an assessment of the scale of their level of knowledge and skills on current conditions and five years ago. The scale is from 1 to 9, the higher scale indicates the higher skills and knowledge. Across the board of all sub-dimension of knowledge, women and men involved in FLG has higher score than non FLG. Gaps between women and men in FLG is fewer than non FLG. Knowledge and skill on fertilizing were become the essential part for FLG both for men and women. A men said that fertilizing technique can be get from any source of information/knowledge from any organization or program, but for FLG they perceived they could get more knowledge as they also produce their own organic fertilizer and some of them were also can sell the tailored fertilizer. Gaps between FLG and non FLG score in term of grafting skill is quite large, shows that FLG play an important role to transfer knowledge and skill on this aspect.
- The disparity between men and women in the household is very small. Gender parity index in FLG is slightly lower than non FLG. Gender parity index showed dissimilarity of empowerment value between men and women in dual-adult household. Households with no mature couple, which consisting women or men only are not included in the category of dual-adult household. To get the value of gender parity, empowerment value for both dual-adult household member, the respondents and the spouse need to be determined. Parity is achieved when the empowerment value of respondent and spouse are nearly the same. The first component of the Parity index is number of household (H) not achieved parity, can be either the respondent or spouse (Hdisparity). HGPI is the ratio of the number of families do not achieve equality of the number of all dual-adult household. The second component is the average of the difference between empowerment value (Empowerment Intensity - I) of each couple in dual-adult household (IGPI). The result of multiplying these two components showed disparities between couple, and gender parity index represents the difference of this multiplying result with the highest equality value which is one. HGPI = Hdisparity / n (number of all dual-adult household) IGPI = 1 ℎ 𝑗=1 ℎ 𝑐 ′ 𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑊 − 𝑐 ′ 𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑀 1− 𝑐 ′ 𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑀 Where 𝑐 ′ 𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑊 (𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛) dan 𝑐 ′ 𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑀 (𝑚𝑎𝑛) the empowerment value or intensity or adequacy of the main couple (husband and wife) in household (j) and h is the number of households with gender parity. GPI = 1 – (HGPI x IGPI) In order to increase GPI score, the percentage of women who have parity should also increased (reducing HGPI) or by scaling down the difference of empowerment value for both couple (reducing IGPI).
- This table performing the difference of women empowerment score in different types of FLG involvement. Involvement in FLG may imboost women empowerment quite substantial if it’s involve both husband and wife (type A), the highest women’s score are in this typology (0.93). Along with men empowerment, women empowerment were also happen with the low gaps and it found in 53% case of people who involve in FLG. The second highest average empowerment score fall in the group of (C) with the score 0.8, found in 5 out of 6 respondent’s number. Though in average, the parity level of FLG farmers still lower than non FLG, but they could achieved high empowerment level. Non FLG farmers are having average empowerment score 0.75 for both men and women, it’s much lower than the empowerment level of people in FLG. There are 11% from the total dual-adult HH, where the women are not empowered but the HH is involve in FLG. More than 50% of them, only the husband who actively involve in FLG. The husband were not sharing their new knowledge and skill to the wife, due to the low interest of the wife in agriculture as mention by Mr. A04, Mrs. B05, Mrs. B06 on below statement. Moreover, there are 40% of un-empowered women inside the HH involve in FLG but with both husband and wife are active. Looking at the individual data of who include in this typology, most of them are not yet having their own resource assets, they still attached with their extended family, and therefore the adequacy score of resource ownership and control are very low.