Strengthening Women’s Livelihoods through Collective Action: Market Opportunities in Smallholder Agriculture Research Design & Methodology Bertus Wennink & Thea Hilhorst International Advisory Group Meeting 28 – 29th June 2010, Oxford Outline 1. Research Steps & Planning (recall) 2. Resources available for research 3. Selection of Sub-sectors 4. Inventory of Collective Action 5. Gendered mapping of sub-sectors 6. Survey 7. Focus Group Discussions & Case studies Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Research steps (as in proposal) Step 1 Selection of sub-sectors (markets) for in-depth analysis –informed by SD; gendered sub-sector and supply chain analysis (2010) Step 2 Primary data collection: • Analysis of existing forms of collective action; costs and benefits for male and female members, and identification of gender-specific barriers of access to collective action (2010 + case studies 2011) • Assessment of interventions for enabling gender equitable collective action to improve market access and bargaining power (2011: outcome mapping) Step 3 Identification of new practices for effective collective action of women around market access informed by research findings (2011) Resources available for research Total budget: $410.000 • BMGF: $390.000 (40% of total project budget) • KIT own resources:+/- $30.000 Allocation/division of resources: • KIT Research team: 23% (132 days in total) • Country research teams 49% : ( 2 pp/country each team has 210 days in total) –about 50 already used • Travel budget: 14% (= about 3 field visits) • Survey: 14% (3 countries) $18700/ country Period available for research: 18 months (January 2010– July 2011) Research Steps –phase 1 Choice of Countries & 2009 Regions I. Selection of Sub-sectors Completed April 2010 Gendered Mapping of Start April 2010 Selected Sub-sectors II. Inventory of Types of Collective Action Mapping of Primary Level CA in ‘Districts’ etc. May - June 2010 Listing & Sampling of CAs III. Survey Literatur 100 Coll. Acts & 10% Members/Non-mbs Planning Sep - Nov 2010 e Review Identification of Issues & Cases for FGDs & Studies Start Feb 2010 IV. Focus Group Discussions 2010 Start-up phase 2: Case studies 2011 2011 effective interventions Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Process for Selection of sub-sectors (February - April 2010) Steps • Inventory of sub-sectors by researchers (secondary data) long list • Inventory of sub-sectors by participants in stakeholder dialogue new long list or add to long list • Assessment of sub-sectors by SD participants according to: • Actual women’s participation (labor and income) • Actual market size (expectations on sustained growth) • Crossing of the two criteria for each sub-sector (matrix) • Selection of actual ‘high potential’ sub-sectors by the stakeholders with presence of collective action short list Selection of Sub-sectors (ctd) Matrix for selection of sub-sectors Level of women’s participation Low Medium High Low Level of market demand & potential Medium High Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Selected Sub-sectors Ethiopia Mali Tanzania Amhara Oromia Koulikoro Sikasso Shinyanga Tanga Staple food Maize Millet & Rice*+/- Rice Maize Sorghum Traditional Coffee* Ground bulk nuts* commodities Traditional Milk *- Shea*+/- Local Vegetables high-value chicken products Vegetables New high- Honey *+ Spices*- Sesame Tiger Green gram Allan blackia value nut*- products * Gender segregation; but changing + implications of market demand/ technology change Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Selected Sub-sectors (ctd) Tiger nuts Green gram Allan blackia nuts Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Remarks on process SS selection • In project design: SS selection informed by SD participants (to comment on/add to proposal by researchers); change at AA workshop SS selection decided by participants SD (researchers narrowed down from 4 to 3) – more engagement, but implications for research design; research into SS had to start later than anticipated • Existence of Collective to be key criteria – but was it always sufficiently taken into account? • Intention: Actual economic importance => discussion more on potential economic importance? – Also because difficult in practice to obtain secondary data on economic potential and women participation (at the regional level) • SD was much more time & resource consuming than anticipated; during workshop: not enough time left for full inventory CA and gendered mapping, identifying locations); • Communications lines/ planning became “complex”: confusing for research team regarding who was deciding on what; mixed messages Inventory of Types & Forms of Collective Action According to the chain functions: • • Operators/operations: production, processing & transport, and marketing • Supporters/support services: groupings around inputs; training & advice (e.g. farmer field schools), and credit & savings • According to forms: • Status: formal & informal • Gender: men-only, women-only or mixed • Location (geographic) • Numbers (estimates of total no. CA per type/form, no. of female & male members) inventory started during SD + extra follow up work in selected sites by field assistants (not in workplan) Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Gendered Mapping of the Sub-sectors Gendered mapping: • Visualization of the selected sub-sectors & existing value chains • Identification of all chain operations, support services (incl. pilots to promote women’s access to markets) • Assessment of policy & institutional environment • Highlighting the position of women in the sub-sector • Highlighting the collective action in the sub-sector; presence of women The gendered sub-sector map allows for • understanding of actual position of women in sub-sector • Identifying potentials and barriers for women producers, processors & traders to access markets and improve revenues • Assessing options for using collective action to enhance gender equitable benefits in the sub-sector and empowerment Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Gendered Mapping of the Sub-sectors (ctd) Steps • Collect of information during Stakeholder Dialogues & identification of resource persons & additional sources of information • Continued collect of information (during 2010) and complete map & analysis (2011) • Collect information during field visits for the survey (see next step; features of the regions & villages, gendered mapping of the selected sub-sectors) • Collect information during field visits the Focus Groups Discussions • Etc. Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Some findings Ethiopia Sub- No. producer No. CA No. CA No. CA sector/prod % women production marketing services uct /collection only for only SS Milk 5660 (17% 45 103 ♀) Honey > (1% ♀ trad; 6-10 36 + 1 union 10% ♀ modern Vegetables 5000 400 ♀ retailers Spices - red “many 25 pepper women” Coffee >Household; 160 -labour fallen beans Gathering for women fallen beans Maize > household labour 5 ass; 6 gen (5% ♀?) coop Mali Sub- No. No. CA No. CA No. CA sector/prod producer production marketing services uct % women /collection only for SS only Shea >> >> processing 5 identified Tiger nuts 8703(68% 41 + 2 ♀) unions Millet – >>> 35% Coop/assoc. > 50 3 unions sorghum Des ♀ Rice >> >> riz bas-fonds 8 coop product; 3 transformation Sesame > 64 3 unions (15000?) groundnuts >> 5 Tanzania Sub- No. producer No. CA No. CA No. CA sector/prod % women production marketing service uct /collection s only only for SS Rice 36% all HH Labour Union (136.000 S) groups; COOP? Maize 93% all HH union (190.000 T) Local 260.000HH S chicken mostly ♀ Green gram 4% all area Or chick pea leguminous(1500 chick pea S) Allanblackia 4500 producersT NGO/ (40% women) project vegetables 2277 HHT Initial Proposal: Sequencing of Survey, FGDs & Case Studies Survey Gendered mapping Hypotheses Hypotheses -Focus Group Discussions -case Studies Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Initial proposal Survey Object of survey • Formal & informal types of collective action in selected SS • Women inside & outside collective action • (understanding differences between female and male members on costs/ benefits: FGD /case study- not in survey themes • ‘Characteristics’ of women inside & outside collective action • Costs; benefits; risks from collective action for women • Empowerment as a result of CA Methods for data collection • questionnaires with individual women (members & non- members of collective action but active in sub-sector living in same community) • questionnaires with leaders/resource persons of collective action “types” Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl Initial proposal Survey planning Develop detailed questionnaires (mid Aug 2010) • Country level translation • Pre-testing • Finalize questionnaire Prepare site & case selection • Full list of Collective action; members; non-members in selected sites (Aug 2010) • Sampling • Train research teams • Data collection (Sep - Oct 2010 given rainy season & availability of farmers) • Data entry & processing (start Nov 2010) • Analysis (Dec 2010) • FGD simultaneously (planning) or following survey analysis in 2011? Cases and sampling Sampling strategy • 2 Districts/ woreda/ commune with 2 or 3 of the selected sub- sectors) • 100 cases of CA/ country: => 16 cases per Subsector or weighted (based on total CA or membership in population in selected sites)? • Female Members/ non-members in subsector in same community (characteristics; cost-benefit; empowerment) • Establish list of members of CA and lists of women outside CA but active in sub-sector working in the same locality • Selection (at random) of 5 women inside & 5 women outside CA • Collective action questionnaire: via leaders/resource persons of CA. Amsterdam, The Netherlands www.kit.nl However – is the initial plan still the right approach? • Some sub-sectors selected seem to have very limited collective action directly related to market access (seems limited to labour sharing --Tanzania- Ethiopia-coffee/ vegetables) • Tanzania; all reported CA seem externally induced- is this correct? • In some SS very limited numbers of CA until now • Higher than expected variation types of CA: is it possible to analyse cost; benefit, risks or empowerment (strategic interests) using a survey as main methodology? • Sampling & logistics: Sub-sectors seem spread out over large area/ limited overlap. • It may be better to postpone survey: continue with more qualitative work for each SS starting at community level (gender biases to enter and to stay; full inventory and typology CA, economics); – only then followed by a survey (reconsider sampling and counter factual) What is the most optimal use of limited resources and time to achieve quality?
Pages to are hidden for
"IAG KIT ReDeMePl v 6"Please download to view full document