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

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

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

Shocks

Women’s Empowerment

Women’s rights

Savings/ investments

Wellbeing

Consumption

Full incomes Livelihood strategies

Assets/ Capitals

Men Joint Women Legend

Context: Ecological, Social, Economic, Political factors etc.

ASSETS, LIVELIHOODS AND WOMEN RIGHTS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Adapted from the Gendered Livelihoods Conceptual Framework by Meizen-Dick et al (2011). 4

Impact Pathway Women become more empowered and gender empowerment gap is reduced

Develop analytical framework and

methodology for assessing project impact on women’s

empowerment

Measure the status of men’s and women’s

empowerment and the gender parity in empowerment

1. Document and disseminate results

2. Develop a strategy to enhance women’s empowerment in

development projects

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

5

METHODOLOGY

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

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

This study Adapted the five dimensions to six dimensions in order to address Rights

9

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

10

Partner Location (District)

Case Study / intervention

Remarks

Ford Foundation Nairobi All Donor

Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI)

Naivasha and Malindi

Poultry value chain

Resettled IDPs in Naivasha (2007 and before) Rural community in Malindi Baseline 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

11

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

12

EADD 30%

KARI 42%

JUHUDI 28%

% distribution of households interviewed by project

13

Results –Women’ s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

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

14

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.

Cont…

15

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)

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

Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - KARI

Mode of milk marketing

Gender

N

Proportion empowered

(% head count)

Naivasha Men 57 60

Women 89 61

Malindi Men 64 60

Women 75 44.5

17

• 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

Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - Juhudi

Mode of milk marketing

Gender

N

Proportion empowered

(% head count)

Taken loans Men 69 81

Women 80 43

Not taken loans Men 26 77

Women 28 36

18

• 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

Proportion of Empowered Women and Men - EADD

Mode of milk marketing

Gender

N

Proportion empowered

(% head count)

Dairy groups Men 45 70

Women 46 26

Other modes Men 40 82

Women 40 17

19

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

Contributors to Inadequacy in Disempowered Women - EADD

20

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Inp

ut

in p

rod

uct

ive

de

cisi

on

s

Au

ton

om

y in

pro

du

ctio

n

Ow

ner

ship

of

asse

ts

Pu

rch

ase

or

sale

of

asse

ts

Acc

ess

to a

nd

dec

isio

ns

on

cre

dit

Co

ntr

ol o

ver

use

of

inco

me

Gro

up

mem

be

rsh

ip

Spe

akin

g in

pu

blic

Iden

tity

car

d

Leis

ure

Wo

rk d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Re

pro

du

ctiv

e h

eal

th

GB

V a

ttit

ud

es

Production Resources Income Leadership Time Rights

Inad

eq

uac

y

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% selling through groups were inadequate in terms of access and decisions on credit

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-EADD

21

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Men Women Men Women

Dairy groups Other modes

DIS

EMP

OW

ERM

ENT

IND

EX (

M0

=1-6

DE)

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

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-KARI

22

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Men Women Men Women

Malindi Naivasha

DIS

EMP

OW

ERM

ENT

IND

EX (

M0

=1-6

DE)

GBV attitudes

Reproductive health

Work distribution

Leisure

Identity card

Speaking in public

Group membership

Control over use of income

Access to and decisions oncreditPurchase or sale of assets

Ownership of assets

Autonomy in production

Input in productive decisions

Overall contribution of all indicators to disempowerment-JUHUDI

23

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Men Women Men Women

Taken loan Not taken loan

DIS

EMP

OW

ERM

ENT

IND

EX (

M0

=1-6

DE)

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

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

The 2nd Sub-Index – Gender Parity Index

25

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

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

Question 2

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

27

KARI – WEAI Score and GPI

Component Group 6 domains

of

empowerme

nt index

GPI WEAI all women

WEAI WMHH only

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

Juhudi – WEAI Score and GPI

Component Group 6 domains of

empowerment

index

GPI WEAI all women

WEAI WMHH only

Taken loans Women 0.73 0.86 0.74 0.70

Men 0.93

Not taken loans

Women 0.70 0.87 0.71 0.71

Men 0.91

29

EADD – WEAI Score and GPI

Component Group 6 domains of

empowerme

nt index

GPI WEAI all women

WEAI WMHH

Selling milk through Dairy groups

Women 0.62 0.82 0.64 0.64

Men 0.87

Not selling milk through Dairy groups

Women 0.60 0.83 0.62 0.62

Men 0.94

30

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

Question 3

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

32

CASE STUDIES

33

• 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

Case Study selection criteria

34

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

35

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

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

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

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

Case Study results-JUHUDI Case 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. (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

40

• 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

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • FORDFOUNDATION

• KARI

• JUHUDI KILIMO

• EADD

• KWH

• The PGI team at ILRI

• Respondents from the following counties:

• Naivasha • Malindi • Nandi

• Bomet

• Transzoia

42

43

Thank You!