Patterns of Agricultural Production Among Male and Female Holders: Evidence from Agricultural Sample Surveys in Ethiopia

1. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Patterns of Agricultural Production
Among Male and Female Holders:
Evidence from Agricultural Sample
Surveys in Ethiopia
Leulsegged Kasa, Gashaw Tadesse Abate,
Prof. James Warner, IFPRI-Addis Ababa
Caitlin Kieran, PIM-IFPRI
June 17, 2016
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
WHY GENDER MATTERS IN
AGRICULTURE?
 If women had the same access to
productive resources as men:
• They could increase yields on their farm
by 20–30%
• This could raise agricultural output in
developing countries by 2.5–4%
• This could in turn reduce the number of
hungry people by 12–17% (FAO SOFA 2011).
There are incentives for gender equality!
Page 2

3. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Presentation Outline
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Patterns of agricultural production
differences between Male Holders
(MH) and Female Holders (FH)
• Livelihood asset differences
• Agricultural input use differences
• Livelihood strategy differences
4. Conclusion and the way forward
Page 3

4. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1. INTRODUCTION
Rationale
 Gender inequalities are among the critical
barriers for development in Ethiopia (CSA
WB 2013).
 These inequalities emanate from social
constructs and can be changed positively
(Quisumbing, 1996).
 Evidence based interventions are needed
for the desired change.
 Sex-disaggregated data is crucial
Page 4

5. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Study objective
To generate sex-disaggregated data from the
Agricultural Sample Surveys (AgSS) of the
Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency (CSA) for
gender analysis
Page 5

6. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2. METHODOLOGY
Source of Data and Sample Size
 The 2010/11 to 2014/15 Meher Season Post-
Harvest Survey (MSPHS) and the Livestock
Survey (LSS) data
 The MSPHS covers rural households who
cultivated at least one crop whereas the LSS
includes those who own livestock
 In MSPHS > 46,000 holders (80-85% MH &
15~20% FH) and LSS > 68,000 holders (80-
85% MH & 15~20% FH).
 Covers all regions & representative
Page 6

7. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Data Description
 The MSPHS data include:
• Basic socioeconomic profile of holders
• Land use, cultivated area by crop
• Input use, agronomic practices, production …
 The LSS data also include:
• Basic socioeconomic profile of holders
• Ownership by breed/hive type
• Livestock extension participation status
 All data can be disaggregated by
holder sex!
Page 7

8. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3. Patterns of Agricultural Production
between Male & Female Holders
A. Livelihood asset differences b/n FH & MH
 FH have lower human capital
• FH are older, have lower family size and
less educated
 FH have lower natural capital ratio to MH
• Per capita land holding ratio of FH to MH is
0.81 & own 25 pt. pts less livestock
 FH have lower use of credits
• FH credit users are 6 percentage points
lower than MH
Page 8

9. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
B. Agricultural input use differences
between FH & MH
The proportion of FH:
 Who used improved seeds were 5 pt. pts
lower than MH
 Who used chemical fertilizers were 8 pt.
pts lower than MH
 Who used irrigation were 3 pt. pts lower
than MH
 Who received crop production extension
service were 13 pt. pts lower than MH
 Who used crop production extension
packages were 9 pt. pts lower than MH
Page 9

10. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
C. Livelihood strategy diversification
differences
 A higher proportion of FH (17%) practice
only crop agriculture compared to MH
(8%).
 Participation of FH in Teff production is
lower than MH by 14 pt. pts
Production participation is influenced by:
• Labor availability
• Production site proximity
• Other input use intensity
Page 10

11. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
4. Conclusion and the Way Forward
Conclusion
 There are clear difference between FH and
MH in access to, ownership of, and use of
productive resources.
The way forward
 AgSS data is a good starting point
 Enhance quality of data and use
 Increase disaggregation & coverage
Page 11

12. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Thank you!
Page 12