Presented by Ephrem Tesema at the Livestock and Fish Gender Working Group Workshop and Planning Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 October 2013

1. Gender tooling in LIVES: Design, adaptability, use and
triangulation
Ephrem Tesema
Livestock and Fish Gender Working Group
Workshop and Planning Meeting
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14-18 October 2013

2. Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why Gender Tools
The Design
Adaptability through pretest
Use and misuse gender tools
Complementarity with Gender Quantification
Triangulation
Case Study from LIVES Use of Gender tools in Lome
District, East Shoa Zone, Oromia regional State
• Merits of Gender Tools
• Demerits
• Concluding Remarks

3. Why Gender Tools
• To carry out Gender Analysis across the VCD, Enterprises
and Various Contexts
• To Triangulate gender related findings
• To Identify Opportunities, Constrains, Alternatives
• To Ensure Gender Empowerment in project intervention
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
• To rectify intervention fault lines and to bring positive
deviations
• To Bring good results and intended outcomes from
project interventions
• Finally, to bring equitable and equal benefits for female
and male smallholders from our agricultural value chain
intervention

4. The Design: The LIVES Case
• The current gender tool is designed by team members
from Nairobi and Addis
• Designed to capture both Livestock and Crop related
value Chains
• The design process was interactive, empowering and
gives room for further improvement
• Already published and can be down loaded on line

5. Adaptability
• Can be adapted to different commodities, VC nodes and
contexts through pretest
• The repetitions in some parts can be avoided
• Needs discussion with team on its use in a way to bring a
gender inclusive and disaggregated data
• Example from LIVES Team Experience during pretest can
give practical challenges and experiences
• Scenario 1: Female and Male only FGD
• Scenario 2: Mixed Group and Female only Group FGD
• Scenario 3: Male only, Female only and Mixed Group FGD
Implications: Scenario one: 5Com X 31 DistX2FGD=
Implications: Scenario Two:5Cpm X31X2FGD
Implications: Scenario 3: 5CpmX31X3

6. Broader Implications of Scenarios
• Data Quality and representativeness/inclusiveness
• Time and Financial Resources
• Problem to handle bulk data and make good use of it
Possible Remedies
 Team Consensus on uniformity of the process across
project intervention areas
 Reconcile issues raised the quantitative baseline data
with issues raised on the Gender tools
 Raise financial resources, sufficient skilled manpower and
base the decisions of composition of FGD participants
accordingly

7. Case Study from LIVES Use of Gender tools in Lome District,
East Shoa Zone, Oromia regional State
Women only FGD
Men only FGD
Gender Interactive FGD

8. Summary of Result
A. Women Only FGD
• The FGD was conducted with Nine women selected from
Dibandiba kebele by a development worker & the East Shoa
zone LIVES coordinator.
• Dibandiba Kebele is located in East Shoa zone, Lume
district, about 65km from Addis Ababa.
• As the population in the area mostly speak Afan Oromo, the
interview was conducted in both Amharic & Afan Oromo.
• There is Ada Lume union farm in the kebele established in
March 2010, which is engaged in the distribution of improved
pullets.

9. Summary of Results Cont’d
• Findings
•
•
•
•
•
About 500 HHs in the kebele
350 MHH (70%) & 150 FHH (30%)
About 70% keep poultry
Both local and improved breeds
Breeds proportion 50% each
• Major objectives:
• Cash need
• As an entry point to engage in other businesses such as
small & large ruminants
• Considered as an initial step to come out of poverty
• Home consumption

10. Summary of Findings Cont’d
Major constraints:
• Poultry disease/ lack of vet services
• Inputs such as feeds, pullets, etc.
• Training
• Extension services (no follow up)
Ownership and management
• No differences in ownership patterns b/n MHH & FHHs
• But mainly managed by women & youths
• No differences in breed preferences b/n MHH & FHHs
• Both prefer improved breeds as compared to locals

11. Summary of Results Cont’d
• They buy eggs of improved hens from their own area
(considering that the hen is good layer) and they incubate
it with local hens (reduce mortality and female birds
obtained in such way are good brooders)
• Marketing decisions - is mainly by women
• Parents transfer some of their chicken to their
children/youth
• Any household member has a right to sell his/her own
and manage the money

12. Summary Results Cont’d
Division of labor:
• Construction of poultry houses by males
• Cleaning & other routine management activities by
women
• Children also do the routine management activities
• Different management practices
• Improved management for improved breeds
• Locals – left for free roaming
• Common inputs:
• Feeds (maize grain, sorghum, wheat middling, soya
bean, salt, etc.)
• Except for some who use commercial poultry
ration, majority use home mixed ingredients
• Health services provided by Vet posts and traditional
medicine (Nim tree, solanum ‘Imbowayi’, red pepper, etc)

13. Summary Results Contin’d
Market
•
•
•
•
The most common markets are at
Modjo
Road side
House/farm gate
General Observation:
•
•
•
•
Highly aware women (but different level)
Highly motivated & visionaries
Weak linkage b/n the farm & the nearby farmers
Not organized – for collective action

14. Summary Results Cont’d
B. Men Only FGD
•
•
•
•
Number of Interviews: 8 male farmers
Total number of households: 450
Household proportion: 75% MHH 25% FHHH
Proportion of household having rearing poultry 80% =
360 HH
• Types of breeds: Local 95% , Exotic 5%
• Objectives of rearing poultry
•
•
•
•
Household expense cover
Source of food (holidays etc)
School fee
Asset building

15. Summary Result Cont’d
• Constraints in production
•
•
•
•
Knowledge and skill on poultry production
Disease (sudden death)
Absence and accessibility of balanced feed (affordability )
Inaccessibility of credit services (Poor linkage, poor
facilitation)
• Gender ownership pattern
• Women at the household level
• Children
• Breed preferences
• Men: color, local male
• Women: layers

16. Summary Results Cont’d
Gender pattern in decision making
• Household level – women with in the household (children
themselves)
Gender Division of Labor
• Women (house wife)
• Young ladies (girls)
• Improved Management Practices
• Due to lack of demonstration on the management of
improved breeds, there is no a such improved management
practices
• Views of the FGD members
• We observed that poultry is majorly considered as the task of
women
• We aware ourselves that the poultry production needs
assistance from men (Eg.house construction)

17. Summary Results Cont’d
• Conclusion & Recommendation
• Hands on, gender sensitive training should be in place
• credit facilitation should be in place
• Poultry is a women and children friendly venture in the
PA
• The management, credit provision and emphasis given so
far are not what the sector deserves.

18. Summary of Results Cont’d
C. Mixed Group FGD
• The mixed group FGD was conducted with 6 women & 5
men from the Lume district Tede PA.
• 338 Hhs (292 MHH / 46 FHH)
• Livestock Production: Cattle, Small Ruminants, Poultry
• Poultry present in all HH
• History of production: Local --- Improved --- Local
Purpose of poultry Keeping
• Women: Income and asset building / Home consumption
particularly on holidays
• Men: Home consumption / income

19. Summary Results Cont’d
• Major constraint
• Diseases transfer – the locals are not kept in cages
• Loss of chicken by predators
• Slow growth rate of the local breeds
• Small egg size – quality is preferred
• feed shortage
• Supply of day old chicks
• Availability of drugs and vaccines
Gender roles in poultry
• Ownership HH for local and improved breeds
• Role – Local breeds – Production and marketing - women
• Improved breeds production and marketing – men

20. Summary Results Cont’d
Breed Preference
• Women prefer for the local breeds
• Men prefer Hybrid – cross breeds
Marketing
• Seasonal
Challenges :
• Absence of day old chicks
• Access to improved and sustained technologies
• This challenge clearly showed the lack of linkages as a
there is the Ada Lume union farm in the kebele which is
engaged in the distribution of improved pullets.
• Genesis farm is seen as an important source of the chicks
• When improved technology comes the men are the one
that take over.

21. Merits of Gender Tools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Empowering and interactive
Fun while done in team context
Educational and inspiring
Subject to amendment and flexibly usable
The analysis starts at data collection moment
Give room for verification of daring claims
The participant can play the role of the researcher
Give opportunity to disaggregate data by sex
Provides gender, commodity, node, context specific
claims
• Provides rich/thick data and wider perspectives
• Can be done economically
• Give room for further verification, to up grade the data
quality

22. Demerits
• Time consuming
• Subject to abuse if good facilitation skill is not encourages
( elite capture, diluted with ovrdominating
discourse, create boredom on participant farmers)
• Not precise sampling method and way of proving
representativeness of findings
• Subject to reduce reality per se with trivializing
underlying
causes
of
gender
inequality
in
accessing, controlling over resources and enjoying
benefits
• Time consuming while analysis and synthesis is made and
less suitable for software aided analysis
• Requires complimentary data sources and further
triangulations
• Give less chance to prove representativeness and a

23. Concluding Remarks
• Create conducive environment for Participatory design,
test and use
• Involve Multidisciplinary team at all stage of Gender
tooling (Setting objectives, designing, testing, use
,analysis and synthesis of results
• Fit
tools
with
specific
sectors(Livestock/Irrigation),gender/commodity dynamics
(poultry, Dairy and Apicultures), Value chain nodes (
production, input, service, marketing, processing etc.)
• Compliment results with other methods (systematic
observation, archiving, key informant interview, case
studies, transect learning)

24. Involve women: LIVES Gender Tools Pretest in Lome District

25. Involve Men as well: LIVES Gender Tools Pretest in Lome District

26. Thank You!
Together We Can!!
www.lives-ethiopia.org