Bertus wennink thea hilhorst international advisory group meeting 28 29th june 2010 oxford
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 23

Bertus Wennink & Thea Hilhorst International Advisory Group Meeting 28 – 29th June 2010, Oxford PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Strengthening Women’s Livelihoods through Collective Action: Market Opportunities in Smallholder Agriculture Research Design & Methodology. Bertus Wennink & Thea Hilhorst International Advisory Group Meeting 28 – 29th June 2010, Oxford. Outline. Research Steps & Planning (recall)

Download Presentation

Bertus Wennink & Thea Hilhorst International Advisory Group Meeting 28 – 29th June 2010, Oxford

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Strengthening Women’s Livelihoods through Collective Action: Market Opportunities in Smallholder AgricultureResearch Design & Methodology

Bertus Wennink & Thea Hilhorst

International Advisory Group Meeting

28 – 29th June 2010, Oxford


  • Research Steps & Planning (recall)

  • Resources available for research

  • Selection of Sub-sectors

  • Inventory of Collective Action

  • Gendered mapping of sub-sectors

  • Survey

  • Focus Group Discussions & Case studies

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Research steps (as in proposal)

  • Step 1Selection of sub-sectors (markets) for in-depth analysis –informed by SD; gendered sub-sector and supply chain analysis (2010)

  • Step 2 Primary data collection:

  • Analysis of existing forms of collective action; costs and benefits for male and female members, and identification of gender-specific barriers of access to collective action (2010 + case studies 2011)

  • Assessment of interventions for enabling gender equitable collective action to improve market access and bargaining power (2011: outcome mapping)

  • Step 3Identification of new practices for effective collective action of women around market access informed by research findings (2011)

Resources available for research

  • Total budget: $410.000

    • BMGF: $390.000 (40% of total project budget)

    • KIT own resources:+/- $30.000

  • Allocation/division of resources:

  • KIT Research team: 23% (132 days in total)

  • Country research teams 49% : ( 2 pp/country each team has 210 days in total) –about 50 already used

  • Travel budget: 14% (= about 3 field visits)

  • Survey: 14% (3 countries) $18700/ country

  • Period available for research: 18 months (January 2010– July 2011)

Research Steps –phase 1

Choice of Countries & Regions

I. Selection of Sub-sectors

Gendered Mapping of Selected Sub-sectors

II. Inventory of Types of Collective Action

Mapping of Primary Level CA in ‘Districts’ etc.

Literature Review

Listing & Sampling of CAs

III. Survey

100 Coll. Acts & 10% Members/Non-mbs

Identification of Issues & Cases for FGDs & Studies

IV. Focus Group Discussions 2010


Completed April 2010

Start April 2010

May - June 2010

Planning Sep - Nov 2010

Start Feb 2010

Start-up phase 2:

effective interventions


Case studies 2011

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Process for Selection of sub-sectors (February - April 2010)

  • Steps

    • Inventory of sub-sectors by researchers (secondary data) long list

    • Inventory of sub-sectors by participants in stakeholder dialogue  new long list oradd to long list

    • Assessment of sub-sectors by SD participants according to:

      • Actual women’s participation (labor and income)

      • Actual market size (expectations on sustained growth)

    • Crossing of the two criteria for each sub-sector (matrix)

    • Selection of actual ‘high potential’ sub-sectors by the stakeholders with presence of collective action short list

Selection of Sub-sectors (ctd)

Matrix for selection of sub-sectors

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Selected Sub-sectors

* Gender segregation; but changing + implications of market demand/ technology change

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Selected Sub-sectors (ctd)

Tiger nuts

Green gram

Allan blackia nuts

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Remarks on process SS selection

  • In project design: SS selection informed by SD participants (to comment on/add to proposal by researchers); change at AA workshop SS selection decided by participants SD (researchers narrowed down from 4 to 3) – more engagement, but implications for research design; research into SS had to start later than anticipated

  • Existence of Collective to be key criteria – but was it always sufficiently taken into account?

  • Intention: Actual economic importance => discussion more on potential economic importance? – Also because difficult in practice to obtain secondary data on economic potential and women participation (at the regional level)

  • SD was much more time & resource consuming than anticipated; during workshop: not enough time left for full inventory CA and gendered mapping, identifying locations);

  • Communications lines/ planning became “complex”: confusing for research team regarding who was deciding on what; mixed messages

Inventory of Types & Forms of Collective Action

According to the chain functions:

Operators/operations: production, processing & transport, and marketing

Supporters/support services: groupings around inputs; training & advice (e.g. farmer field schools), and credit & savings

According to forms:

Status: formal & informal

Gender: men-only, women-only or mixed

Location (geographic)

Numbers (estimates of total no. CA per type/form, no. of female & male members)

inventory started during SD + extra follow up work in selected sites by field assistants (not in workplan)

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gendered Mapping of the Sub-sectors

Gendered mapping:

Visualization of the selected sub-sectors & existing value chains

Identification of all chain operations, support services (incl. pilots to promote women’s access to markets)

Assessment of policy & institutional environment

Highlighting the position of women in the sub-sector

Highlighting the collective action in the sub-sector; presence of women

The gendered sub-sector map allows for

understanding of actual position of women in sub-sector

Identifying potentials and barriers for women producers, processors & traders to access markets and improve revenues

Assessing options for using collective action to enhance gender equitable benefits in the sub-sector and empowerment

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gendered Mapping of the Sub-sectors (ctd)


Collect of information during Stakeholder Dialogues & identification of resource persons & additional sources of information

Continued collect of information (during 2010) and complete map & analysis (2011)

Collect information during field visits for the survey (see next step; features of the regions & villages, gendered mapping of the selected sub-sectors)

Collect information during field visits the Focus Groups Discussions


Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Some findings Ethiopia



Initial Proposal: Sequencing of Survey, FGDs & Case Studies

Gendered mapping




-Focus Group Discussions

-case Studies

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Initial proposal Survey

Object of survey

Formal & informal types of collective action in selected SS

Women inside & outside collective action

(understanding differences between female and male members on costs/ benefits: FGD /case study- not in survey


‘Characteristics’ of women inside & outside collective action

Costs;benefits; risks from collective action for women

Empowerment as a result of CA

Methods for data collection

questionnaires with individual women (members & non-members of collective action but active in sub-sector living in same community)

questionnaires with leaders/resource persons of collective action “types”

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Initial proposal Survey planning

Develop detailed questionnaires (mid Aug 2010)

  • Country level translation

  • Pre-testing

  • Finalize questionnaire

    Prepare site & case selection

  • Full list of Collective action; members; non-members in selected sites (Aug 2010)

  • Sampling

  • Train research teams

  • Data collection (Sep - Oct 2010 given rainy season & availability of farmers)

  • Data entry & processing (start Nov 2010)

  • Analysis (Dec 2010)

  • FGD simultaneously (planning) or following survey analysis in 2011?

  • Cases and sampling

    Sampling strategy

    2 Districts/ woreda/ commune with 2 or 3 of the selected sub-sectors)

    100 cases of CA/ country: => 16 cases per Subsector or weighted (based on total CA or membership in population in selected sites)?

    Female Members/ non-members in subsector in same community (characteristics; cost-benefit; empowerment)

    Establish list of members of CA and lists of women outside CA but active in sub-sector working in the same locality

    Selection (at random) of 5 women inside & 5 women outside CA

    Collective action questionnaire: via leaders/resource persons of CA.

    Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    However – is the initial plan still the right approach?

    • Some sub-sectors selected seem to have very limited collective action directly related to market access (seems limited to labour sharing --Tanzania- Ethiopia-coffee/ vegetables)

    • Tanzania; all reported CA seem externally induced- is this correct?

    • In some SS very limited numbers of CA until now

    • Higher than expected variation types of CA: is it possible to analyse cost; benefit, risks or empowerment (strategic interests) using a survey as main methodology?

    • Sampling & logistics: Sub-sectors seem spread out over large area/ limited overlap.

    • It may be better to postpone survey: continue with more qualitative work for each SS starting at community level (gender biases to enter and to stay; full inventory and typology CA, economics); –only then followed by a survey (reconsider sampling and counter factual)

    • What is the most optimal use of limited resources and time to achieve quality?

  • Login