This document summarizes a case study measuring women's empowerment in two dairy cooperatives in Kenya. It finds that while economic development opportunities can help, they do not necessarily lead to empowerment if women's rights are not also addressed. The study used a modified Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index to evaluate empowerment across six domains, including a new health domain. Results showed men were more empowered than women, especially in households selling milk through other means instead of a cooperative. Both economic and rights factors contributed to disempowerment. The conclusion calls for simultaneously addressing economic and rights issues in interventions to achieve equitable gender impacts.

1. Case Study: Measuring Women’s
Empowerment in Tanykina and Sot
Dairies of Nandi and Bomet Counties,
Kenya
Elizabeth M. Waithanji
Poverty, Gender, Impacts and Innovation Team
Presented at the Foundation, Roundtable Conversation at Fairview Hotel, Nairobi on 4/12/2012

2. Outline of presentation
• Introduction: How do women become and stay disempowered even
during economic development interventions?
• Purpose of study – measuring the gender empowerment gap in
economic development?
• What is the evidence that women are more disempowered than
men (known)?
• What are the specific contributors to women’s disempowerment
(new)?
• Conclusion and way forward
2

3. Introduction: How women become and stay disempowered?
Chart: Percentage share of income by
women from sale of beans in Malawi
 Historical marginalization of women
(Njuki et al. 2011)
through cultural practices and norms
 Communal discourses used to justify and 1600 35
maintain status quo of women’s 1400 30
marginalization (Nagar 1998; Naryan et
Total amount (USD)
1200
% share of women
al 2000) 25
1000
 Stigmatization and retribution for those 20
challenging gender-power status quo 800
15
(Butler 1993; Waithanji et al 600
forthcoming) 400
10
 Institutions – the state, family and 200 5
markets – reproduce and sustain gender
0 0
inequalities (Agarwal 2003; Waithanji et 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
al forthcoming)
 In markets, men usually take over  The denial of women’s control over
traditionally women’s crops once they assets – human, social, physical,
became profitable [Njuki et al 2011] financial, natural and political – results
in gender inequality and it is violation
of women’s rights
3

4. Purpose of study: Combining economic development and
women rights in diagnosis?
• Providing women economic opportunities does not necessarily lead to
empowerment
• Women being aware of their rights without the financial resources to exercise
these rights will not also lead to empowerment either
• Combining women’s economic opportunities and women’s rights might have the
potential to lead to broader women’s empowerment and changes in gender
relations
• The results described here demonstrate impacts of economic development and
the main contributors to the lower women’s empowerment in a livestock value
chain development project
• The diagnostic method used in this study will enable actors in economic
development projects to narrow the gender empowerment gap by targeting of
the main development and rights issues that contribute to women’s
disempowerment
4

5. In what ways are women disempowered
(Known)?
Evidence from Kenya

6. Inter household Land Access – Tanykina and Sot Dairies
(Waithanji et al work in progress)
Land Access by HH Headship Land Access by Mode of Milk Marketing
12
12
10
10
8
8
Land size in acres
Land Size in acres
6
6
4 4
2 2
0
0
**Male headed Female headed
Dairy groups Other modes
Dairy groups Other modes
Male headed Female headed
Land is the most important resource for agricultural production (Agarwal 1994).
None of the women from male headed households owned land.
6

7. Inter and Intra-household cattle ownership – Tanykina and Sot
Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progress)
MHH (n=50, 41) had more cattle Men in MHH and selling milk through dairy groups
(n=50) and other modes (n=41) owned significantly
than FHH (n=8,9) (p=0.000) more cattle than their spouses
Interhousehold Cattle Ownership Intrahousehold Cattle Ownership
6
7
5
6
Number of cattle owned
Number of cattle owned
5 4
4
3
3
2 2
1
1
0
Dairy groups Other modes
0
Male headed Female headed ***Dairy groups ***Other modes
Household head Spouse
7

8. Intra-household Decision Making and cattle Income Control in
Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in progress)
In MHH households, head and spouse decide to sell cattle jointly
more frequently in HH selling milk through dairy groups than Income from sales of cattle is hardly controlled jointly by men and
through other modes. Spouses never makes decision to sell cattle spouses and Men in MHH control over 60 percent of the income
alone alone compared to 25% of decision to sell in dairy groups
Who in the Household Decides Who Controls Money from Sale
to Sell Cattle of Cattle
100% 100%
90%
80% 80%
70%
60% 60%
50%
40% 40%
30%
20% 20%
10%
0% 0%
Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes
Male Female Male headed Female headed
Other outsider and household head
Household jointly Household jointly
Household head and spouse jointly Spouse
Household head and spouse
Household head Household head
8

9. Intra-household Milk and Egg Income Management and
Control in Tanykina and Sot (Waithanji et al work in
progress)
Total income derived from milk was significantly higher than total
income derived from eggs. Women from HH selling in dairy groups
Women managed/handled almost all the income controlled more milk and egg income than women from HH using
obtained from eggs and some milk income other modes
Intra-Household Management of Intra-Household Control of Milk
Milk and Egg income (MHH) and Egg Income (MHH)
25000 45000 100
40000 90
35000 80
20000
30000 70
K-Shillings
60
25000
Income in Ksh
15000 50
20000
40
15000 30
10000 10000 20
5000 10
5000 0 0
Dairy groups Other modes Dairy groups Other modes
Milk Eggs
0
Dairy groups ***Other ***Dairy **Other
modes groups modes Total Household income
Milk Eggs Proportion (%) controlled by spouse
HH head Spouse
Women managed/ handled more money than they had control over 9

10. Specific contributors to women’s
disempowerment (new)

11. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) (IFPRI 2012)
• The WEAI measures women’s and men’s
empowerment, agency, and inclusion in Illustration of the 5DE and 6DE
agriculture within dual adult /Male concepts in WEAI
headed households.
• The WEAI is composed of two sub-
indices; the 5 Domains of Empowerment
(5DE) and the Gender Parity Index (GPI)
• The WEAI tool is highly adaptable to
different contexts (nDE)
• In this study, a sixth domain of
empowerment, health, was added to the
earlier WEAI in order to incorporate
some rights issues (Waithanji et al, work
in progress .
11

12. Impact Evaluation Using Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture
(WEAI) (IFPRI 2012; Waithanji et al work in progress)
 Health as wellbeing rather than
DOMAIN INDICATORS
mere absence of disease or
Production  Input in productive decisions infirmity (WHO 1946)
 Autonomy in production
Resources  Ownership of assets  6DE index =(1-(% disempowered
 Purchase, sale, or transfer of
women*%
assets
 Access to and decisions on insufficiency/inadequacy attained
credit by disempowered women in the 5
Income  Control over use of income
dimensions)
Leadership  Group membership
 Speaking in public
 GPI= (1 – (% disempowered
Time  Workload
women*% disempowerment gap
 Leisure
between them and their primary
Health  Autonomy in making decisions
on reproductive health
males).
 Attitudes towards gender
based violence  WEAI= ((6DE*0.9) + (GPI*0.1)) 12

13. Some WEAI Results (Tanykina and Sot Dairies) (Waithanji
et al work in progress)
Mode sex N 6DE GPI WEAI  Men using other modes of milk
milk marketing were significantly
marketi
ng more empowered than men
marketing through groups
(P=0.037)
HH
Head 44 0.8740  For both groups men were more
Dairy
groups empowered than women (6DE)
(test)
Spous
44 0.6289
e  Gender parity was higher for
0.8278 0.6485
those marketing through groups
HH
40 0.9243
than other modes
Other Head
modes
(contro  Women from households
l) Spous 40 marketing milk through dairy
e 0.5959
0.8244 0.6191 groups were more empowered
than those from HH using other
modes (WEAI) 13

14. Contribution of various indicators to women and men’s disempowerment –
Tanykina and Sot Dairies (Waithanji et al work in progress)
0.45
Overall, women from both marketing
GBV attitudes systems were more disempowered than
0.4
Reproductive health men
0.35 Work distribution
Leisure
The gender empowerment gap was wider in
DISEMPOWERMENT INDEX (M0=1-6DE)
0.3 HH that sold milk through other modes than
Identity card
in HH that sold through groups
0.25 Speaking in public
Group membership In terms of economic development Women
0.2
Control over use of
from HH that sold using other modes were
income worse off than those from HH selling in
0.15 Access to and decisions
on credit groups
Purchase or sale of
0.1 assets
Ownership of assets In terms of rights (attitudes to GBV and
0.05
Autonomy in production control of their reproductive health),
women from HH marketing milk through
Input in productive
0
Men Women Men Women
decisions groups were worse off than women from
Dairy groups Other modes HH marketing through other modes
14

15. Conclusion
Economic issues are major contributors to the gender empowerment
gap in economic development
– Ownership of assets
– Autonomy in production
– Ability to decide on sale or purchase of assets
– Access to and decision over credit
Rights issues are key contributors to women’s disempowerment
– Attitudes towards GBV
– Lack of autonomy over one’s reproductive health
For impacts in economic development to be gender equitable,
development interventions must address economic and rights issues
simultaneously
15

16. Way Forward - Dissemination
 Development partners involved in the study have demonstrated
an interest in integrating women’s rights components in their
development interventions and sharing the findings with their
partners
 These findings will be shared with the CGIAR global gender
network, which has already demonstrated a great interest in this
study
 The regional network on Gender and Rural development have
requested us to share this methodology and present these and
other finding in the next network meeting (Jan 2013)
16

17. Acknowledgements
• Ford Foundation for Funding this Study
• Development partners in the WEAI study, namely,
EADD, Juhudi Kilimo, KARI and KWH
• Tanykina and Sot dairies officials, farmers and the
community where they live
• ILRI management for endorsing this study
17

18. Thank You!
18