ATA thematic discussion

on gender presented by

SNV Ethiopia

10 April 2019

We work in

26 countries

across three continentsWith a global team of over

1200 experts

33% Women

90% of our professionals

are nationals of the country in which they work

SNV global

We focus on 3 sectors which are

fundamental to human development

In 2017 we implemented

150 projects

We were founded in

1965

3

In 2017 improved lives of

6.4 M People

SNV Ethiopia

We focus on 3 sectors

Active in

365+ Woredas

We make a lasting

difference for millions of

people living in poverty

8

210 national /global staff

97% national staff

29% female staff

We have full fledged

3+ satellite offices

Target Beneficiaries

4.2 million People

Currently, we implement

17 projects

Started operation in

1974

Current Projects!

Agriculture (8)

SEECCS: RVO

NBPE II: 100,000 people GoE & DGIS/Hivos

Energy (3)

SSH4A (Este): 248,175 People DfID

TWASH: 2 million people USAID

WASH (5)

NBPE+: 180,000 people GoE & EU

IAP: 1.2 million people SIDA

GYEM: 15,000 HHs Comic Relief

Horti-LIFE: 30,000 PeopleEKN

GRAD II: 97,900 HHsUSAID

BRIDGE: 120,000 HHs EKN

LI-WAY: 200,000 PeopleSida

14

iWET: 800,000 people AFAS Foundation

RISE: 5,000 PeopleEKN

Institutional san: 25,120 people

VEI

WASHTra: 1.2 million peopleFHF

2SCALE:DGIS

Balancing Benefits

5

Gender and Youth Empowerment in horticulture Markets

• Project period: February 2016 – June 2019

• Donor: Comic Relief

• Commodity: Horticulture value chains

• 5 outcomes: productivity, marketing, cooperation strengthening, youth

employment and gender empowerment

• Partners: unions and their cooperatives

o Meki Batu, Oromia Region

o Timret, SNNPR

• Beneficiaries: 15,000

6

Revisiting women

empowerment through a

cultural lens

An in-depth analysis of empowerment

methodologies in horticulture in rural Ethiopia

Authors: Sarah De Smet; Smaranda Boros

7

Research• Collaboration between SNV Ethiopia and Vlerick Business School through ICP

programme (prof. dr. Smaranda Boros)

• Research on PALS in the GYEM project with the objective to:

o Assess the validity of the intervention

o Assess the impact of the intervention

o Assess the unforeseen side-effects of the intervention

o Draw lessons about the larger system

• Data collection:

o Semi-structured interviews

o Observation in the field

o Assessment checklist of farmers trained in PALS

o Own reports from field activities

8

Theoretical background• Women empowerment:

o A process by which disempowered women acquire the ability to make strategic life

choices (Kabeer, 1999)

o Increase choice and agency at individual level AND address structural inequalities

o External facilitators needed to challenge power inequalities

o Avoid cultural and value based tensions + approach social change as open ended

• Power distance:

o Hofstede (1984): the degree to which individuals, groups, societies accept

inequalities in power as unavoidable, legitimate or functional

o Implications on perception of justice, on emotions, on behaviour and leadership

9

PALS: Participatory Action Learning for Sustainability• Gender is simple and “means women and men treating each other like equal

human beings with equal human rights and social responsibilities”

• Catalyse discussion, reflection and motivation from ‘within’ the participants

themselves – based on drawing tools

• Key principles:

o Start with vision and the positive

o Everyone can be a leader

o Action from day 1

o Inclusion

o Facilitation from the back

o Make it fun

• Advocacy and policy

10

PALS Upscaling

11

Framework for analysis: Van Tulder model

12

Findings• Mission:

o PALS: empowerment in order to reach social justice

o Community: “Her son questioned the utility of the training, ‘if she did not receive

the water pump she wants’”

• Input:

o Selection of the champions

▪ Men and women from different households: unequal sharing

▪ People with ‘issues’ (70%) mixed with people without ‘issues’: inspirational for others but risk of failure

threatens credibility – gap in pace and understanding during the workshops

▪ 4 champions from 5 different villages: little coherence at times, too low number to be influential

13

Findings• Throughput:

o Facilitation from the back and do

not hold the pen of anyone else:

▪ Staff level

▪ Creative strategies at farmer level

• Output:

o Champions understanding of the

steps of the tools was mixed

o Champions able to provide content

to the the tools was mixed

o Champions sharing with peers and

stakeholders was very animated

14

Findings• Outcome

o Many changes at micro level:

▪ Increase of savings (56% women, 50%

men)

▪ New source of income (60% women)

▪ New investments (60% men)

▪ Increased respect (50% women, 20%

men)

o Meso level:

▪ Improved relationship (40%)

▪ Less strict division of household tasks

(25%)

15

Findings

• Impact:

o Upscaling:

▪ Frequent copying

▪ Uncoordinated facilitation

among the trainer farmers,

no uniform explanation

▪ Lively discussions among

champion trainers and 2nd

round champion trainees

16

Recommendations• Mission:

o Clarify mission from both sides

o Taking into account power distance between external facilitator and community

• Input:

o Selection of the champions

▪ Enough people in number

▪ Who are more or less equal in power

▪ Involve both husband and wife of the same family

• Throughput:

o In-depth coaching of staff who facilitate the process

o Facilitation from the back: avoid correcting / organize the workshop in such a way

that the need to display power is reduced

17

Recommendations• Output:

o Make the tools as simple as possible, disintegrate the steps

o Reduce various possibilities for interpretation

o Do provide examples – as many as possible

o Alter reflection with more discussion in groups with individuals equal in power

• Outcome:

o Timing of gender agenda?

o Separate structure of women

• Impact: Upscaling and long term changes

18

THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?

19