Presentation by Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki, Edna Mutua, Luke Korir and Nabintu Bagalwa at a stakeholder workshop on "Integrating livelihoods and rights in livestock microcredit and value chain development programs for empowering women" held at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya on 25 February 2013.

1. EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK MICROCREDIT AND VALUE CHAIN
PROGRAMS ON WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT USING THE WOMEN’S
EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURE INDEX (WEAI)
by Elizabeth Waithanji, Jemimah Njuki , Edna Mutua, Luke Korir, and Nabintu Bagalwa

2. Study Justification
• Providing women with economic opportunities, while
denying them their rights, does not necessarily lead to
empowerment
• Neither does women being aware of their rights without
the financial resources to exercise these rights
automatically lead to empowerment
• And these two dimensions (economic opportunities and
rights) are rarely applied together in development
interventions
Combining women’s economic opportunities and women’s
rights could have the potential to lead to broader women’s
empowerment
2

3. Research questions answered
1. What are the gendered empowerment patterns
of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries?
a. What factors, livelihood or rights, have contributed
most to the disempowerment of the disempowered
women?
b. Are the factors that contribute to women’s
disempowerment similar to those that contribute to
men’s disempowerment?
2. Do different livelihood interventions contribute
differently to women’s empowerment?
3. How do women perceive themselves in terms of
empowerment and how does this self
assessment compare with the WEAI
measurements?
3

4. ASSETS, LIVELIHOODS AND WOMEN RIGHTS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Shocks
Consumption
Assets/ Livelihood Wellbeing
Full incomes
Capitals strategies
Women’s Savings/
rights investments
Women’s Empowerment
Context: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors etc.
Legend Adapted from the Gendered Livelihoods Conceptual
Men Joint Women
Framework by Meizen-Dick et al (2011). 4

5. Impact Pathway
Women become more empowered and gender empowerment gap is reduced
Projects to implement strategies and evaluate impacts on women’s empowerment and gender
parity
Develop strategies for ensuring women’s empowerment in development interventions
Project teams build capacity to (i)measure women’s empowerment and gender parity in
empowerment; and (ii) implement strategies in projects to ensure women’s empowerment
1. Document and
Develop analytical Measure the status of
disseminate results
framework and men’s and women’s
2. Develop a strategy to
methodology for assessing empowerment and the
enhance women’s
project impact on women’s gender parity in
empowerment in
empowerment empowerment
development projects
5

6. METHODOLOGY

7. Women’s Empowerment In Agriculture Index-WEAI
• WEAI is a methodology developed to track changes in
women’s empowerment levels as a direct or indirect
result of development initiatives
• The methodology was first piloted in 2011 through a
collaborative initiative between IFPRI (International Food
Policy Research Institute) and OPHI (Oxford Poverty and
Human Development Initiative) for the USAID funded
Feed the Future global hunger and food security initiative
in Uganda, Bangladesh and Guatemala.
• It is composed of two sub-indices
– One measures women’s empowerment (5DE)
– The other measures the gender parity in
empowerment within the household (GPI)
7

8. WEAI cont…
• WEAI measures the empowerment, agency, and
inclusion of women in the agriculture sector in an effort
to identify ways to overcome those obstacles and
constraints
• The Index aims to increase understanding of the
connections between women’s empowerment, food
security, and agricultural growth
• It measures the roles and extent of women’s
engagement in the agriculture sector in five dimensions:
 decisions about agricultural production,
 access to and decision making power over productive
resources,
 control over use of income,
 leadership in the community, and
 time use.
8

9. This study Adapted the five dimensions to six dimensions in order
to address Rights
Illustrations of five and six dimension WEAI as interpreted from the IFPRI / OPHI / USAID WEAI
brochure 2012 (by Waithanji et al 2012)
Health is defined as wellbeing rather than a mere absence of disease or infirmity (WHO 1946)
9

10. Study design
Three Case Studies: Two on livestock value chains and one on a livestock
microcredit
Four Partners: One Donor – Ford Foundation; and three economic
empowerment livestock projects, KARI; EADD; Juhudi Kilimo
Partner Location Case Study / Remarks
(District) intervention
Ford Foundation Nairobi All Donor
Kenya Agriculture Naivasha and Poultry value Resettled IDPs in Naivasha
Research Institute Malindi chain (2007 and before)
(KARI) Rural community in Malindi
Baseline study
East African Dairy Nandi and Dairy value Uses the hub model to
Development Bomet chain enhance participation in the
Project (EADD) milk market
Juhudi Kilimo Transzoia Livestock Provide loans for agricultural
Microcredit production (mostly dairy and
chicken)
10

11. Site and Sample Selection; and data
• Selection of study sites – purposive, based on type
of project (and partners with a gender focus)
• Sample selection – multi-stage random sampling
• Quantitative and qualitative methods
– Quantitative – household and individual questionnaires administered to
household heads and primary women in male headed households
respectively
– HH questionnaire had two sections; the household and individual section.
Individual questionnaire had an individual section only
– Households heads were either male or female. FHH were of the dejure
kind i.e. those that had never married or were divorced, separated or
widowed.
– Qualitative – in-depth face-to-face interviews with women (FHH or
WMHH) interviewed in the quantitative component
• Data analysis – Quantitative – using SPSS and STATA
• Qualitative – analysed inductively
11

12. TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
• The total households were 400 • Interviewed
households were
% distribution of households derived from:
interviewed by project • KARI total of 168
households; 79 from
Malindi and 89 from
JUHUDI EADD Naivasha.
28% 30% • Juhudi total of 111
households
• EADD total 121
KARI households from
42% Bomet and from
Nandi
12

13. Results –Women’ s Empowerment in
Agriculture Index
13

14. The 1st Sub-Index: THE SIX DOMAINS OF
EMPOWERMENT (6DE)
DOMAIN INDICATORS
1 Production Input in productive decisions
Autonomy in production
2 Resources Ownership of assets
Purchase, sale, or transfer of assets
Access to and decisions on credit
3 Income Control over use of income
4 Leadership Group membership
Speaking in public
5 Time Workload
Leisure
6* Health Decision making on reproductive health
Vulnerability to gender based violence
The HEALTH domain is an adaptation of WEAI by the ILRI-PGI team in order to
integrate rights in the index. The domain focuses on individuals’ attitudes
towards GBV and one’s ability to make decisions over their own reproductive
health. 14

15. Cont…
The index assesses whether men or women
are empowered across the six domains and
one is considered empowered if they attain
adequate achievements in 4 of the 6
domains or 64% adequacy from weighted
indicators
6DE index = % of empowered women+ (% of
disempowered women*% of adequacy
attained by disempowered women in the 6
dimensions)
15

16. Question 1
• What are the gendered empowerment
patterns of project beneficiaries and non
beneficiaries?
– What factors, livelihood or rights, have
contributed most to the disempowerment of the
disempowered women?
– Are the factors that contribute to women’s
disempowerment similar to those that contribute
to men’s disempowerment?
16

17. Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - KARI
Mode of milk Gender N Proportion empowered
marketing (% head count)
Men 57 60
Naivasha
Women 89 61
Men 64 60
Malindi
Women 75 44.5
• In Naivasha a larger proportion of women than men was
empowered
• In Malindi the converse was true
• Empowered women and men had attained adequate
achievements in 4 of the 6 domains or 64% adequacy
from weighted indicators 17

18. Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - Juhudi
Mode of milk Gender N Proportion empowered
marketing (% head count)
Men 69 81
Taken loans
Women 80 43
Men 26 77
Not taken loans
Women 28 36
• A larger proportion of men than women was empowered
• A larger proportion of men and women who had borrowed
loans than those who had not was empowered
• Empowered women and men had attained adequate
achievements in 4 of the 6 domains or 64% adequacy from
weighted indicators
18

19. Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - EADD
Mode of milk Gender N Proportion empowered
marketing (% head count)
Men 45 70
Dairy groups
Women 46 26
Men 40 82
Other modes
Women 40 17
A larger proportion of men than women was empowered
A larger proportion of men selling milk through other modes
than those selling through groups was empowered
A larger proportion of women selling through groups than
other modes was empowered
19

20. Contributors to Inadequacy in Disempowered
Women - EADD
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Inadequacy
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Speaking in public
Leisure
Identity card
GBV attitudes
Ownership of assets
Control over use of income
Work distribution
Reproductive health
Input in productive decisions
Purchase or sale of assets
Group membership
Access to and decisions on credit
Autonomy in production
Production Resources Income Leadership Time Rights
Dairy groups Other modes
Inadequacy: 1=maximum deprivation and 0=maximum adequacy
e.g. Of the disempowered women, 83% selling milk through other modes and 74% 20
selling through groups were inadequate in terms of access and decisions on credit

21. Overall contribution of all indicators to
disempowerment-EADD
0.45
0.4
GBV attitudes
0.35 Reproductive health
DISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE)
Work distribution
0.3
Leisure
0.25 Identity card
Speaking in public
0.2 Group membership
Control over use of income
0.15
Access to and decisions on credit
0.1 Purchase or sale of assets
Ownership of assets
0.05
Autonomy in production
0 Input in productive decisions
Men Women Men Women
Dairy groups Other modes
21

22. Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-KARI
0.3 GBV attitudes
Reproductive health
0.25 Work distribution
Leisure
DISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE)
0.2
Identity card
Speaking in public
0.15
Group membership
Control over use of income
0.1
Access to and decisions on
credit
Purchase or sale of assets
0.05
Ownership of assets
Autonomy in production
0
Men Women Men Women Input in productive decisions
Malindi Naivasha
22

23. Overall contribution of all indicators to
disempowerment-JUHUDI
0.35
GBV attitudes
0.3
Reproductive health
DISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE)
Work distribution
0.25
Leisure
0.2 Identity card
Speaking in public
0.15 Group membership
Control over use of income
0.1
Access to and decisions on credit
Purchase or sale of assets
0.05
Ownership of assets
0 Autonomy in production
Men Women Men Women Input in productive decisions
Taken loan Not taken loan
23

24. Conclusion 1
• The gendered empowerment patterns varied with the context, namely,
the location of the study and the type of intervention. These patterns
should, therefore, not be generalized. E.g. Among resettled IDPs, one is
likely to find more empowered women than men.
– The domains contributing most to women’s disempowerment were
resources and health/rights. Disempowerment in time, leadership and
control over income varied with context. E.g. women who took loans
through Juhudi were more disempowered in the time and leadership
domains than women who did not take loans.
– Well meaning interventions could leave some beneficiaries worse off
than they were before the intervention. E.g. Women with loans from
Juhudi were more disempowered than those without loans in terms of
time
– Factors that contribute to women’s disempowerment may be similar e.g.
KARI study, or different, e.g. Juhudi and EADD, from those that contribute
to men’s disempowerment.
– To be sure of what factors cause disempowerment, they have to be
measured and documented in impact evaluations like this one. 24

25. The 2nd Sub-Index – Gender Parity Index
1. This sub-index compares empowerment between
men and women in dual adult (MH) households
2. It also shows the gap between male heads of
households and their spouses where parity is yet to
be achieved
3. GPI= (1-(% of disempowered women*% gap
between them and the households’ primary
males)).The score ranges from 0-1. The closer the
GPI is to 1 the more the gender parity
25

26. WEAI
• WEAI=The weighted sum of
projects/programs/country’s/region’s 6DE and GPI
• WEAI= ((6DE*0.9) + (GPI*0.1))
• Increase in a WEAI score can be achieved through
improving the 6DE and GPI scores
• The closer the WEAI to 1, the more empowered the
women
26

27. Question 2
• Do different livelihood
interventions contribute
differently to women’s
empowerment?
27

28. KARI – WEAI Score and GPI
Component Group 6 domains GPI WEAI all WEAI
of women WMHH
empowerme only
nt index
Malindi Women 0.72 0.87 0.74 0.70
Men 0.82
Naivasha Women 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.79
Men 0.83
28

29. Juhudi – WEAI Score and GPI
Component Group 6 domains of GPI WEAI all WEAI
empowerment women WMHH
index only
Taken loans Women 0.73 0.86 0.74 0.70
Men 0.93
Not taken Women 0.70 0.87 0.71 0.71
loans
Men 0.91
29

30. EADD – WEAI Score and GPI
Component Group 6 domains of GPI WEAI all WEAI
empowerme women WMHH
nt index
Selling milk Women 0.62 0.82 0.64 0.64
through Dairy
groups
Men 0.87
Not selling milk Women 0.60 0.83 0.62 0.62
through Dairy
groups
Men 0.94
30

31. Conclusion 2
• Different livelihood interventions can contribute differently to
women’s empowerment.
– We tested for variations in the extent of empowerment among FHH and
WMHH by removing FHH from sample of women used in the WEAI
calculation. WEAI for WMHH in Malindi and Naivasha (KARI) reduced; there
was no change in WEAI for EADD WMHH selling through groups and other
modes, and Juhudi WMHH without loans; but WEAI scores for Juhudi
drastically reduced for WMHH with loans.
– The finding from KARI (baseline) indicates that FHH were more
empowered than WMHH
– The finding from EADD suggests that the intervention
empowered women from FHH and MHH equally
– The finding from Juhudi suggests that the intervention
empowered women from FHH, but disempowered women from
MHH. This finding can be explained by the fact that women from
FHH have full control of their income, but women from MHH
tend to lose control of their income share as HH income increases
(Njuki et al 2011). Benefits from value chains are determined by
a person’s ability to control productive assets and household
decisions (Coles & Mitchell, 2011).
31

32. Question 3
• How do women perceive
themselves in terms of
empowerment and how does this
self assessment compare with the
WEAI measurements?
32

33. CASE STUDIES
• Narratives describing individual women’s lives obtained through in
depth face to face interviews aiming to establish the women’s definitions
of empowerment and their self evaluation of empowerment according
to their definition
• The case studies respondents were selected from among individual
survey respondents by comparing a woman’s self ranking *on her
influence in the community] and a more objective index derived from 6
empowerment indicators
• The indicators were:
1. Input in decision making capacity around agricultural production
2. Ownership of productive capital/ assets
3. Access to credit
4. Access to extension services
5. Decision making capacity on own income
6. Individual’s leadership and influence in community
33

34. Case Study selection criteria
Three types of cases selected:
• Those whose self ranking of empowerment matched the index ranking
(e.g. no 16) – spot on
• Those whose self ranking was higher than the index ranking (e.g. no 5)
– overrated themselves
• Those whose self ranking was lower than the index (no 10) - under
rated themselves
34

35. 35

36. Miriam’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Miriam was empowered in 4 out of the 6 domains and her average
weighted score was 67%. She was classified as empowered based on the 6DE
Miriam believed she was empowered because she is innovative and able to meet her
family’s needs
36

37. Maureen’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Maureen was empowered in 3 out of the 6 domains and in
67% of the weighted indicators. She was, classified as empowered according to 6DE
Maureen felt she was disempowered because she is not good in public speaking.
37

38. Nancy’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Nancy was empowered in 2 out of the 6 domains and her average
weighted score was 50%. She was classified as disempowered according to 6DE
Nancy felt she was empowered because she is hardworking, visionary, open minded and
willing to take advice from people that are successful in her areas of weakness.
38

39. Catherine’s Empowerment Score
The 6DE indicated that Catherine was only empowered in 1 out of the 6 domains and her
average weighted score was 39%. She was classified as disempowered according to 6DE
Catherine believed she was disempowered because she did not have any livestock and
did not belong to a group that gives out loans
39

40. Case Study results-JUHUDI
Case study Empowerment Empowerment Whether woman is Women’s self Gender parity
number score of man score of empowered based on assessment
based on 6DE woman based 6DE
on 6DE
1. 0.67 0.69 Empowered Empowered Achieved
2. - 0.72 Empowered Empowered -
3. (Catherine) 0.92 0.39 Disempowered Disempowered Not achieved
4. 0.78 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved
5. (Nancy) 0.56 0.50 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
6. 0.83 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
7. (Miriam) 0.58 0.67 Empowered Empowered Not achieved
8. 0.81 0.53 Disempowered Empowered Not achieved
9. 0.58 0.58 Disempowered Empowered Achieved
10. (Maureen) 0.72 0.67 Empowered Disempowered Not achieved
• Most empowered women believed that they were empowered.
• Most disempowered women believed that they were empowered.
• All FHH interviewed from all sites were empowered in terms of 6DE and own rating
40

41. Conclusion 3
• There were similarities and differences
between women’s empowerment in terms of
their self evaluation and evaluation using the
index
– Empowered women according to the index mostly considered
themselves to be empowered using their own measures. Some
disempowered women according to the index also appeared to
consider themselves empowered using their measure.
– Whose measure is right? The index, the women’s own measure,
or both? Why?
– There is a need to harmonize indicators used by researchers
and those used by the women to measure empowerment in
order to represent the women’s perceptions
41

42. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• FORDFOUNDATION • Respondents from the
following counties:
• KARI
• Naivasha
• JUHUDI KILIMO • Malindi
• Nandi
• EADD
• Bomet
• KWH
• Transzoia
• The PGI team at ILRI
42

43. Thank You!
43