Patterns of Agricultural Production Among Male and Female Holders: Evidence from Agricultural Sample Surveys in Ethiopia
1. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Patterns of Agricultural Production
Among Male and Female Holders:
Evidence from Agricultural Sample
Surveys in Ethiopia
Leulsegged Kasa, Gashaw Tadesse Abate,
Prof. James Warner, IFPRI-Addis Ababa
Caitlin Kieran, PIM-IFPRI
June 17, 2016
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
2. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
WHY GENDER MATTERS IN
AGRICULTURE?
If women had the same access to
productive resources as men:
• They could increase yields on their farm
by 20–30%
• This could raise agricultural output in
developing countries by 2.5–4%
• This could in turn reduce the number of
hungry people by 12–17% (FAO SOFA 2011).
There are incentives for gender equality!
Page 2
3. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Presentation Outline
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Patterns of agricultural production
differences between Male Holders
(MH) and Female Holders (FH)
• Livelihood asset differences
• Agricultural input use differences
• Livelihood strategy differences
4. Conclusion and the way forward
Page 3
4. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1. INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Gender inequalities are among the critical
barriers for development in Ethiopia (CSA
WB 2013).
These inequalities emanate from social
constructs and can be changed positively
(Quisumbing, 1996).
Evidence based interventions are needed
for the desired change.
Sex-disaggregated data is crucial
Page 4
5. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Study objective
To generate sex-disaggregated data from the
Agricultural Sample Surveys (AgSS) of the
Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency (CSA) for
gender analysis
Page 5
6. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2. METHODOLOGY
Source of Data and Sample Size
The 2010/11 to 2014/15 Meher Season Post-
Harvest Survey (MSPHS) and the Livestock
Survey (LSS) data
The MSPHS covers rural households who
cultivated at least one crop whereas the LSS
includes those who own livestock
In MSPHS > 46,000 holders (80-85% MH &
15~20% FH) and LSS > 68,000 holders (80-
85% MH & 15~20% FH).
Covers all regions & representative
Page 6
7. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Data Description
The MSPHS data include:
• Basic socioeconomic profile of holders
• Land use, cultivated area by crop
• Input use, agronomic practices, production …
The LSS data also include:
• Basic socioeconomic profile of holders
• Ownership by breed/hive type
• Livestock extension participation status
All data can be disaggregated by
holder sex!
Page 7
8. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3. Patterns of Agricultural Production
between Male & Female Holders
A. Livelihood asset differences b/n FH & MH
FH have lower human capital
• FH are older, have lower family size and
less educated
FH have lower natural capital ratio to MH
• Per capita land holding ratio of FH to MH is
0.81 & own 25 pt. pts less livestock
FH have lower use of credits
• FH credit users are 6 percentage points
lower than MH
Page 8
9. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
B. Agricultural input use differences
between FH & MH
The proportion of FH:
Who used improved seeds were 5 pt. pts
lower than MH
Who used chemical fertilizers were 8 pt.
pts lower than MH
Who used irrigation were 3 pt. pts lower
than MH
Who received crop production extension
service were 13 pt. pts lower than MH
Who used crop production extension
packages were 9 pt. pts lower than MH
Page 9
10. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
C. Livelihood strategy diversification
differences
A higher proportion of FH (17%) practice
only crop agriculture compared to MH
(8%).
Participation of FH in Teff production is
lower than MH by 14 pt. pts
Production participation is influenced by:
• Labor availability
• Production site proximity
• Other input use intensity
Page 10
11. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
4. Conclusion and the Way Forward
Conclusion
There are clear difference between FH and
MH in access to, ownership of, and use of
productive resources.
The way forward
AgSS data is a good starting point
Enhance quality of data and use
Increase disaggregation & coverage
Page 11