Deborah Duveskog, SLU Esbern Friis-Hansen, DIIS
description
Transcript of Deborah Duveskog, SLU Esbern Friis-Hansen, DIIS
Deborah Duveskog, SLU
Esbern Friis-Hansen, DIIS
Evaluating Empowerment in the Rural Small-holder Context:
Lessons from East Africa
The small-holder context..
• Changing rural context • No package solutions• Globalised markets • Incresed trends for decentralisation and demand driven services
Requires farmers that are able to take control!
Farmer Empowerment..• “A process that increases the capabilities
of smallholder farmers and farmer groups to make choices and to influence collective decisions towards desired actions and outcomes on the basis of those choices” (DANIDA 2004)
“Before, if somebody asked me what I do I used to say
“nothing”. Now I proudly answer; “I am a farmer”.
Kellen Wambui, Mureri FFS, Nakuru, Kenya
Theoretical Framework
Empowerment (Sen, Narayan, World Bank, DANIDA)
1. Opportunity Structures Institutional climate
Social and political structures
2. Agency of the PoorAssets and Capabilities
Collective levelIndividual level
Development Outcomes
Learning process (FFS case)
CriticalConsciousness
Action & Transformation
Enhanced well-being
Opportunity structures
Farmer Field Schools (FFS)..
…a laboratory for critical reflection
Observation
Agro-eco System Analysis (AESA)
AnalysisPresentation
Synthesis /discussion
AESA…
Participatory development of indicators!
• Of 1) Well-being and of 2) Empowerment!
Methodology
Household Survey
1. Well being ranking indicators : Access to land, work, use of workers, animal ownership, house, dressing, health /medical, food security
2. Empowerment indicators : Access to services, access to markets, membership in organisations, personal empowerment.
3. Attitude: “Likert Scale” perception of power to change / make decisions at household & community level
KEN TZN UGA
FFS graduates 301 300 300
Non-members 200 200 100
Methodology
Participatory methods..
• Individual interview
• Focus group discussion
• Visual tools
Methodology
Qual Quant
Attitudes....• I have a clear plan for how
to improve my farm!
• When I talk other farmers take my ideas serious!
• In my village other people recognise me as somebody important!
• Attending community meetings is a waste of time!
• I am proud of being farmer!
• I believe that I can change my life to the better!
Methodology
Statistical Analysis (SPSS)`Factor Analysis’ of Attitude Questions
Household decision making capacity
•Decision on farming activities and practices•Decision on household expenditure
Gender equity and trust
•Men and Women are equally involved in leadership in the village•Conflicts between man and wife in the HH rare•Trust people in groups in matters related to lending money
Power to influence community
•Part of the decision-making process for community action •You can make this village a better place to live
Individual agency and control
Have power to make important decisions
Help friends and neighbours in unfortunate situations
Trust in local authorities
Trust local government officials and politicians
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization
Results
Empowerment Factors * FFS membership
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Equamax with Kaiser Normalization
Kenya Tanzania Uganda
HH decision making capacity *** *** NA
Gender and trust *** *** ***
Individual agency and control
*** *** ***
Trust in authorities NA NA ***
Power to influence community
Results
Indication of significance (Creamérs`V) : * p < 0.01; ** p < .005; *** p < .001
Statistical Analysis (SPSS)Link between FFS participation and empowerment
KENYA TANZANIA UGANDA FFS (Control) FFS (Control) FFS/NAADS
(Control) Innovation uptake Uptake of improved crop varieties # 86% (70,6%)*** 43,3% (38,3) 9%(3%)*** Vaccination of livestock 72% (44%)*** 1.7% (19.2)*** OBS! Cross breeding of goats 5%(3%)* Improvement of soil fertility 86,3% (77.3) 66,3% (60,8) Acess to Services Obtained Agricultural advice or assistance in the last two years
83,7% (37,8%)*** 88% (60,5)*** 91%(41%)***
Collaboration with reserach 13,3% (0%) *** 7% (5%) 3%(0%) Obtained advice from other farmers 48,7% (20,2%)*** 52,7% (15,8)*** 60%(64%) Applied for credit 32% (21%) 25,7% (21) Membership in savings/credit org. 77,3% (45,4%)*** 40,0% (27,3) 5%(13%) Have a bank account 31% (13,6%)*** 12,7% (8,3) 50%(15%)*** Farming as a business Sold farm produce in past two seasons 89,3% (78,2)** 85,3 (89,2) OBS! 81%(74%) Occasional or regular sale of produce 90,7% (70,5)*** 57,1% (53,3) Store produce to fetch higher price 55,7% (43,7)* 36,0 (23,3) Add value/process products 20% (5)*** 39,3% (15,9) 1%(0%) Collective action/social relations Involved in collective marketing 14% (5)** 30,3 (27,5) 14%(12%) Hold leadership position 63% (39,5)*** 58,4% (47,5) 57%(43%) Voted in the last local election 96% (89,1)** 89,7% (96,6) OBS!
Results
Qualitative scopeOutput themes of individual and group interviews;
Farming Decisions Relation to service providers
Power / Part of decision making
Local Organisation
View of future..
Community relationstrust
Leadership
Gender relations Challenging traditions
Results
Conclusions
Methodology• Quant. on empowerment possible! • but in combination with Qual. • Merge perceptions & more direct expressions of emp.• Difficult to understand critical consciousness• Mutual learning process
Content• Link between FFS and empowerment • Need to unpack the term empowerment
Thanks! • Esbern Friis Hansen [email protected]
• Deborah Duveskog ([email protected])
http://farmerfieldschools.net