Linking Initiatives, Stakeholders and Knowledge to Achieve Gender-Sensitivelivelihood Security

LINKAGES:

Linking Initiatives, Stakeholders and Knowledge to Achieve Gender-SensitiveLivelihood Security

______

Project Baseline Report

Submitted by:

CARE Canada

c/o 9 Gurdwara Road

Ottawa, ON, Canada

K2E 7S6

September 2013

1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

Background

Review of high level intended results (ultimate and intermediate outcomes)

Methodology - highlights

Findings

Universal Indicator # 1:

1.1Access To and Control Over Key Agricultural Assets

1.1.2Ethiopia – Abdishe

1.1.3 Ghana – Promise

1.2Extension Services

1.2.2 Ethiopia

1.2.3 Ghana

1.2.4 Mali

1.3Intra-household Food Distribution, Consumption and Dietary Diversity

1.3.1 Ghana

1.3.2 Mali

1.4Conclusions Related to Indicator #1

Universal Indicator #2:

2.1Gender Sensitive Value Chain Analysis

2.1.1 Ethiopia

2.1.2 Ghana

2.1.3 Mali

2.2Decision Making Over Profit and Income

2.2.1 Ethiopia

2.2.2 Ghana

2.2.3 Mali

2.3Engagement With Business Collectives and BDSPs

2.3.1 Bolivia

2.3.2 Ethiopia

2.3.3 Ghana

2.3.4 Mali

2.4Conclusions

Universal Indicator #3:

3.1Organizational Capacity to Address Gender Issues

3.1.1 Bolivia

3.1.2 Ethiopia

3.1.3 Ghana

3.1.4 Mali

3.2Conclusions

List of Acronyms

ACArea Council

AOAgriculture Office

BDSPBusiness Development Service Provider

CAPCommunity Action Plan

DADistrict Assembly

DMTDPDistrict Medium Term Development Plan

FBOFarmer-based Organization

GFPGender focal person

HOHealth Office

MSEMicro- and Small Enterprise

PDSECPlan de développement social, economique et culturel

SMCSavannah Marketing Company

VCValue Chain

VSLA Village Savings and Loans Association

WYCOWomen, Youth and Children Office

1

Background

CARE Canada’s Linking Initiatives, Stakeholders and Knowledge to Achieve Gender-Sensitive Livelihood Security (LINKAGES) project is a multi-country initiative consisting of four sub-projects in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana and Mali. The project is financially supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) and has a budget of $8,272,000 with contributions from both CIDA and CARE. The project is implemented over a four-year period, from August 2012 to August 2016.

Livelihood insecurity and vulnerabilities are perpetuated through gender inequalities. LINKAGES is based on the assumption that closing gender gaps in access to and control over livelihood assets, in participation and decision making to carry out livelihood strategies and in personal autonomy are key to achieving livelihoods security and resilience. It also assumes that the enabling environment, comprised of government policies and bureaucrats, private sector actors and actions, and civil society capacity, needs to actively promote gender equality in order to achieve resilience. The LINKAGES implementation strategy is formed on these premises.

Review of high level intended results (ultimate and intermediate outcomes)

The ultimate outcome of the project is to improve livelihood security and resilience for vulnerable women, girls, men and boys in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Ghana and Mali. The intermediate outcomes are:

1. Increased quantity and quality food production and consumption by women, girls, men and boys;
2. Women, men, and male and female youth are better able to manage and control their economic enterprises; and
3. The policy and regulatory environment supports poor women’s and men’s more equal control of agricultural resources and market processes.

The first intermediate outcome focuses on ensuring that men/women and children all enjoy an increase in the quantity and quality of food they eat. The various strategies to achieve this include the promotion of: diversified crop production; meal diversity and improved food preparation methods; good and safe food processing and storage techniques; good hygiene in order to reduce the impact of underlying causes of malnutrition; access to financial resources so as to increase food acquisition capacities; and good feeding practices for children. To impart this knowledge, projects will use a number of training and knowledge transfer strategies (community based resource trainers, group training including through VSL platforms, demonstrations, etc) in order to reach out to the different audiences.

The second intermediate outcome focuses on supporting women, men and female and male youth to manage profitable economic enterprises. This will be achieved by promoting the village savings and loans methodology in order to increase access to financial services/resources and thus, income-generating activity and/or micro-enterprise development opportunities. In the process, participants will be trained in various aspects of enterprise management and linked to various business development services necessary to support their initiatives. Achievement of this outcome will also depend largely on good gender equality mainstreaming that recognizes pre-existing gender imbalances and seeks to address and reduce those gaps.

The third intermediate outcome focuses on creating and/or supporting the creation of an environment (policy and regulatory) that: enables the flourishing of local enterprises; supports the production and marketing of a variety of crops; and ensures equality in public and private spheres. New and existing policy and regulatory frameworks (legal and traditional) will be reviewed, negotiated, lobbied and implemented. In addition, strategies to strengthen linkages between duty bearers and communities will be implemented. Through these linkages, community participation - in particular women participation - will be sought and strengthened in policy discussions/formulation forum opportunities.

Methodology - highlights

The overall program-level baseline is a compilation of the 4-country baselines. It was neither financially feasible nor efficient to conduct a separate baseline for the level of the program when each project was collecting its own. However, in this report the LINKAGES team compiles and ‘aggregates’ information from each of the baseline studies, as we will do for each of the semi-annual and annual progress reports to CIDA. We are highly cognizant of the challenges with ‘aggregating’ results, both quantitative and qualitative, across such diverse contexts. We will be careful to add up ‘apples and oranges’, by explaining diversities and unique aspects of contexts, and looking for common, overarching patterns and trends. We aim to weave a tapestry of results that show the accomplishment of the program as a whole, but still provide space to explain differences in contexts. In addition, information for universal (common) ultimate outcome level indicators will also be collected by each country; these will focus on gender equality results and change in access, control and organizational capacity. (More information regarding these indicators is provided in the next section ‘baseline findings’.)

A very brief description of how the sub-project baselines were carried out at country level is provided below:

Bolivia (TukuyYanapana) –Unfortunately, the country baselineis poor and was inadequately done, despite substantial efforts and guidance provided. Remedial action is needed to fill in information gaps. This will be done in part by conducting specific research that will explore women’s empowerment within the Rural Agriculture Entities.

Ethiopia (Abdishe) – The baseline used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as a two-phase sampling process. Information was collected from both primary and secondary data sources. 180 households were surveyed in 6 of the 14 project target kebeles(municipalities). Respondents included women and men (farmers and non-farmers) from female and male headed households in both rural and urban areas. Tools used include: household survey, focus group discussions (FGD) and Key Information Interviews (KII).

Ghana (Promise) – A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods were used. The sample included households in 4 of the 8 target project communities across the Upper East Region and East Mamprusi Districts; a total of 185 respondents (121 women and 64 men) were surveyed. A household survey (questionnaire and checklist), KII and FGD were used as primary data collection tools. A desktop review of relevant documents was conducted to collect secondary information.

Mali (IFONS) – The baseline was carried out using cross-sectional survey and two-phase cluster sampling methodologies. Information was collected from primary and secondary data sources. 30 clusters were identified in the survey sample, including villages across the four target communes (municipalities) in the Segou region. The sample included children under five, mothers/guardians of children under five, pregnant/lactating women, household heads, community leaders and local government representatives – specifically: 626 children under five, 493 women and 130 men. Tools used include: anthropometric survey, Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey, household survey and focus group discussions (FDG).

For the LINKAGES universal ultimate outcome indicators, sub-projects used four different tools: women’s and men’s access and control comparison chart; women’s and men’s business profit control scales; FGDs; and gender equality organisational capacity checklist. In most cases, these were either integrated in and/or adapted in household surveys mentioned above.

Findings

Baseline findings are outlined in the attached PMF. The section below provides a narrative on the findings.

In October 2012, the core LINKAGES project team set indicators against the program’s ultimate outcome, and worked with each sub-project team to align sub-project results and indicators against that framework where possible. Baseline data collection terms of reference and methods for each country were reviewed by CARE Canada to ensure that individual projects were collecting information related to these universal indicators. Baseline data from all four countries was analyzed and compared against the universal indicators, and common themes were identified. Where all four countries’ baseline information can be compared using a common analytical tool, information is presented through that tool. Where the information can only be compared based on a similar theme, it is presented in narrative form.

There are a number of caveats regarding data quality that influence the following discussion. These are challenges that we as a program team will continue to work on with our Country Offices. The gender tools and analysis we are using are new and robust; the LINKAGES project will be key in rolling them out, experimenting with them and learning from them, so that we can scale up their use.

• Data from Ethiopia compares the responses of male household heads and female household heads in some instances, and male focus group discussion members and female members in others, but when aggregated data is presented (either as raw numbers or percentages) there is no indication if this data was generated from the survey, the FGDs or both. In other words, it is sometimes not possible to determine which women and men are being measured. Comparing data from male and female household heads is not sufficient to uncover the gender dynamics that LINKAGES measures. Rather than measuring comparative access, control, participation or decision making of men as a group and women as a group, male and female household heads answer as regards the wellbeing of their households as a whole, regardless of the status of those in the household. For this reason, some of the data in this survey demonstrates trends that on the surface look like a comparison of gender dynamics but in reality are gender blind.
• Data from Ghana was collected from women only, and was originally presented disaggregated by district. Data presented here has been averaged for both regions unless the differences are so significant that continued disaggregation is warranted. Data regarding extension is not consistent throughout the report, as data sources and total beneficiary pool information for the necessary charts and figures are inconsistent. To determine extension rates, a base number of 30 respondents was assumed (based on the narrative regarding quantitative data collection). In the baseline, the current status of all indicators is ranked on a five point scale from zero to four. In key instances, current gender gaps were not recognized as the starting point in the project and assigned a zero, but were thought to signify some progress towards equality, and were, therefore ranked at a one or two. This report has, in its analysis, re-assigned current gender gaps at a zero.
• Data from Mali was taken from male household heads and from female project beneficiaries who were by-and-large members of those households. It may contain some of the same wrinkles as in the Ethiopia baseline.
• Data from Bolivia was of too poor quality to be useful. We have extracted what we can to use for this report, and will complement with specific pieces of research which will be carried out during the course of the project.

Universal Indicator # 1:

Proportion of women to men with access to assets that are key toresiliency

The LINKAGES project defines key assets for resiliency in three categories:

• key agricultural resources,
• extension, and
• dietary diversity.

The specific list of agricultural resources varies from country to country, but generally includes the agricultural inputs necessary to produce the most valued crops and livestock, and the crops or livestock themselves. These goods may have commercial, nutritive or social value, and may be tied directly to the value chains in which the project is working or to more general economic and food security. The focus of analysis is on the extent to which women, compared with men, access and control the inputs, crops and resources of most productive value. Extension includes the knowledge and skills necessary to produce, process and market these valued goods. It is usually but not exclusively delivered by government agents. The test is to determine the extent to which extension is delivered in ways that are both sensitive to and challenge the gendered division of labour. Does extension take women’s and men’s current agricultural roles into account? Is extension on the most valued crops or livestock delivered to both women and men equally? Finally, equality in dietary diversity means that women, men, boys and girls eat a variety of foods in order to meet their specific nutritional requirements. Sex-disaggregated data on intra-household food distribution was collected in Ghana and Mali. LINKAGES baseline description is limited to data from these two countries.

1.1Access To and Control Over Key Agricultural Assets

1.1.1Bolivia – TukuyYanapana

Because Bolivia is primarily a governance project (governance that focuses on economic development support), as well as one that looks at women’s and men’s productive participation at the level of these Rural Agricultural Entities, the project did not collect data around household assets.

1.1.2Ethiopia – Abdishe

Tables 1 through 4 illustrate the gender gap in women’s and men’s access to and control over key valued agricultural assets. As Table 1 shows, men who head households are between two to four times as likely to have entitlement to land. Male household heads hold on average 4.62 qinddi (or just over half a hectare), while female headed households hold about 3.81 qinddi (or just under half a hectare). Neither men nor women hold irrigated land.

Table 1: Comparison of Women’s and Men’s Land Ownership

Land Uses / Land Ownership by # of Informants
Women / Men
annual crops-area / 42 / 115
homestead-area / 23 / 47
rain fed-area / 18 / 61
perennial crops-area / 17 / 68
grazing/pasture area-area / 5 / 9
forest/wood lots-area / 2 / 8

As seen in Table 2, men are also more likely to control the key productive assets needed for agriculture, with greater gaps seen in rarer, more valued and more technologically sophisticated items. Only 8% of female headed households and 6% of male headed households used improved crop inputs in the last production year.

Table 2: Gender Gap in Access to and Control Over Key Agricultural Resources in Fedis

Physical Capital Required for Agriculture / Percent Capital Control by Sex / Gender Gap in Control (%)
Female / Male
gasso / 29 / 71 / 43
spade/akafa / 28 / 72 / 45
plough (mofer, qanber, maresha) / 26 / 74 / 48
axe/matrabiya / 25 / 75 / 50
mancha (long sickle) / 25 / 75 / 49
hoe (doma or dongora) / 24 / 76 / 52
radio/tape recorder / 21 / 79 / 58
sickle/machid / 16 / 84 / 68
grain mill / 0 / 100 / 100
bicycle / 0 / 100 / 100
private water well/water container / 0 / 100 / 100
water pump/manual/ / 0 / 100 / 100

Men are more likely to control the chat, coffee and mango cash crops grown on perennial land, as illustrated in Table 3. Even in areas where control is relatively equitable (coffee), 49% of participants in focus group discussions indicated that only men decide how income from these crops is used, even if the plants are owned by women.

Table 3: Women’s and Men’s Control Over Perennial Crops

Type of Perennial Crop / % of Female Control / % of Male Control / % of Control by Both
Chat / 27% / 61% / 12%
Coffee / 25% / 25% / 50%
Mango / 12% / 51% / 37%

Conversely, as seen in Table 4, women have greater ownership of livestock and apiaries, with the notable exception of valued oxen owned by both women and men.Baseline analysis notes that this high degree of livestock control by women is unusual for the area, and implies that it may be due to a division of labour in which men are more likely to be involved in cropping for cash and food while women are more likely to be involved in processing and petty trade derived from animal products. Marketing analysis (some of which is explicated under Universal Indicator 2) implies that regardless of the degree to which women own livestock, they are likely to retain profits only from related enterprises that have very small volumes, while men retain control over livestock income generation that is more remunerative.

Table 4: Percentage of Women and Men Owning Livestock

Asset Owned / % Owned by Women / % Owned by Men / % Owned by Both
young bull / 100
calf / 92 / 8
sheep, kids / 83 / 17
cow / 75 / 8 / 17
traditional beehives / 67 / 33
goats, adult / 65 / 3 / 33
donkey / 59 / 14 / 27
goats, kids / 58 / 42
chicken / 58 / 42
sheep, adult / 57 / 14 / 29
heifer / 50 / 13 / 38
oxen/adult bull / 29 / 18 / 53

What this data (especially when combined with data presented later on profit control) shows is that men retain control over the most valued agricultural land, inputs and goods while women have some control over the types of livestock involved in income generating or petty trading activities. Men are generally more likely to retain control over all types of crops, rather than over specific “men’s crops” as in Ghana and, to a certain extent, Mali. While it is possible to conclude, then, that men control the goods needed for this aspect of food security, it is not possible to clearly illustrate similar gender gaps in animal husbandry.