EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK MICROCREDIT AND VALUE CHAIN PROGRAMS ON WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT USING THE WOMEN’S

EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURE INDEX (WEAI)

Elizabeth Waithanji and Edna Mutua

Integrated Dairy Goat and Root Crop Production Workshop, ILRI Nairobi, 19 June 2013

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

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

METHODOLOGY

5

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 and men’s empowerment (5DE) – The other measures the gender parity in empowerment within

the household (GPI)

6

WEAI cont…• WEAI 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, andtime use.

7

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)

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

8

Partner Location (District)

Case Study / intervention

Remarks

Ford Foundation Nairobi All DonorKenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI)

Naivasha and Malindi

Poultry value chain

Resettled IDPs in Naivasha (2007 and before)Rural community in MalindiBaseline study

East African Dairy Development Project (EADD)

Nandi and Bomet

Dairy value chain

Uses the hub model to enhance participation in the milk market

Juhudi Kilimo Transzoia Livestock Microcredit

Provide loans for agricultural production (mostly dairy and chicken)

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

9

10

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS

• The total households were 400

• Interviewed households were derived from:

• KARI total of 168 households; 79 from Malindi and 89 from Naivasha.

• Juhudi total of 111 households

• EADD total 121 households from Bomet and from Nandi

EADD30%

KARI42%

JUHUDI28%

% distribution of households interviewed by project

11

Results –Women’ s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

The 1st Sub-Index: THE SIX DOMAINS OF EMPOWERMENT (6DE)

12

DOMAIN INDICATORS1 Production Input in productive decisions

Autonomy in production2 Resources Ownership of assets

Purchase, sale, or transfer of assetsAccess to and decisions on credit

3 Income Control over use of income4 Leadership Group membership

Speaking in public5 Time Workload

Leisure6* 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.

• One was considered empowered if they attained adequate achievements in 4 of the 6 domains or 64% adequacy from weighted indicators

13

Question 1

• What are the gendered empowerment patterns of project beneficiaries and non beneficiaries?– Among men and women who were more

empowered (proportion)?– 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?

14

Proportion of Empowered Women and Men – KARI and EADD

• In Naivasha a larger proportion of women than men was empowered

• In Malindi the converse was true

• For EADD in Uasin Gishu, a remarkably larger proportion of the following was empowered• men than women, and • men selling milk through other modes than men selling milk through groups

15

Contributors to Inadequacy in Disempowered Women - EADD

Inpu

t in

prod

uctiv

e de

cisio

ns

Auto

nom

y in

pro

ducti

on

Ow

ners

hip

of a

sset

s

Purc

hase

or s

ale

of a

sset

s

Acce

ss to

and

dec

ision

s on

cred

it

Cont

rol o

ver u

se o

f inc

ome

Grou

p m

embe

rshi

p

Spea

king

in p

ublic

Iden

tity

card

Leisu

re

Wor

k di

strib

ution

Repr

oduc

tive

heal

th

GBV

attitu

des

Production Resources Income Leadership Time Rights

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Dairy groups Other modes

Inad

equa

cy

Inadequacy: 1=maximum deprivation and 0=maximum adequacye.g. Of the disempowered women, 83% selling milk through other modes and 74% selling through groups were inadequate in terms of access and decisions on credit

16

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-EADD

Men Women Men WomenDairy groups Other modes

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

GBV attitudesReproductive healthWork distributionLeisureIdentity cardSpeaking in publicGroup membershipControl over use of incomeAccess to and decisions on creditPurchase or sale of assetsOwnership of assetsAutonomy in productionInput in productive decisions

DISE

MPO

WER

MEN

T IN

DEX

(M0=

1-6D

E)

17

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-KARI

Men Women Men WomenMalindi Naivasha

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

GBV attitudes

Reproductive health

Work distribution

Leisure

Identity card

Speaking in public

Group membership

Control over use of income

Access to and decisions on credit

Purchase or sale of assets

Ownership of assets

Autonomy in production

Input in productive decisions

DISE

MPO

WER

MEN

T IN

DEX

(M0=

1-6D

E)

18

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-JUHUDI

Men Women Men WomenTaken loan Not taken loan

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

GBV attitudes

Reproductive health

Work distribution

Leisure

Identity card

Speaking in public

Group membership

Control over use of income

Access to and decisions on credit

Purchase or sale of assets

Ownership of assets

Autonomy in production

Input in productive decisions

DISE

MPO

WER

MEN

T IN

DEX

(M0=

1-6D

E)

19

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.

20

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

21

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

22

Question 2

• Do different livelihood interventions contribute differently to women’s empowerment?

23

WEAI ScoresProject Component 6 domains of

empowerment index

GPI WEAI all women

WEAI WMHH only

KARI Malindi 0.72 0.87 0.74 0.70

Naivasha 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.79

EADD Selling milk through Dairy groups (Test)

0.62 0.82 0.64 0.64

Not selling milk through Dairy groups (Control)

0.60 0.83 0.62 0.62

Juhudi Kilimo

Taken loans (Test) 0.73 0.86 0.74 0.70

Not taken loans (Control)

0.70 0.87 0.71 0.71

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).

24

25

Question 3

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

26

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 production2. Ownership of productive capital/ assets3. Access to credit4. Access to extension services5. Decision making capacity on own income6. Individual’s leadership and influence in community

Case Study selection criteria

27

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

28

Miriam

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 6DEMiriam believed she was empowered because she is innovative and able to meet her family’s needs

29

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 6DECatherine believed she was disempowered because she did not have any livestock and did not belong to a group that gives out loans

30

31

Case Study results-JUHUDICase study number

Empowerment score of man based on 6DE

Empowerment score of woman based on 6DE

Whether woman is empowered based on 6DE

Women’s self assessment

Gender parity

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. 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. 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

32

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 considered themselves to be 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

33

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• FORDFOUNDATION

• KARI

• JUHUDI KILIMO

• EADD

• The PGI team at ILRI

• Respondents from the following counties:

• Naivasha

• Malindi

• Nandi

• Bomet

• Transzoia

34

Thank You!